laid upon the Table the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Constitution (on the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill [B. 91—’83]), submitting the Bill with amendments [B. 91—’83 (Select Committee)].

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading of this Bill we indicated why this party finds it impossible to lend its support to it, despite the fact that the Bill most probably contains a number of improvements now, and that we are, in fact, also in favour of establishing an advisory council for the universities and technikons and we fully understand the justification for this. Despite our support of important elements in the present Bill, we also made it quite clear—Both during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage—that the reason we are unable to support the present legislation is, in this particular case, the exclusion of Blacks.

We gave a very clear indication that in our opinion, there was no logical reason for Blacks being excluded from the composition of this advisory council. It is an advisory body. It is not a body that determines policy. As a matter of fact, in his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister himself indicated that he did, in fact, realize the necessity for giving due consideration to the wishes and desires of the Black universities and technikons as regards representation on the advisory council.

We find it anomalous that we are dealing here with an umbrella body that advises the Minister with regard to Black affairs and a body that could, in fact, also advise the Minister of Education and Training on matters affecting the Black universities and technikons whilst those Black universities and technikons are not represented on this advisory council.

In his reply to the objections raised by the hon. member for Bryanston, the hon. member for Johannesburg West said that as regards the number of people who could be nominated to this council by the Minister, he would, in fact, be able to make provision for the representation of the Black universities and technikons. We waited patiently for the hon. the Minister to react positively to the suggestion of the hon. member for Johannesburg West with regard to the eight members. He did not refer to it at all, however. To me, what the hon. the Minister did say is important, and it compels me to ask him why, despite his own views in this regard, he introduced this Bill before giving due consideration to the principle as regards the representation of Blacks. In this regard the hon. the Minister stated in this House on 20 June 1983—and I Quote him as follows (Hansard, 1983, col. 9788)—

It is abundantly clear to me that by saying this, the hon. the Minister wants to intimate that basically he recognizes the value of Black universities and technikons having a say in, or representation on, an advisory council of this nature. It would otherwise not be necessary for him to put these matters to us in this way. Now I find it surprising that the hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill without having reached finality in his own mind on this important matter, and before it has been finalised by the Government. If I understand him correctly, what he means by saying that when he has thought the matter over and made a decision on the desirability of such a say, he will introduce a Bill next year which could possibly amend the composition of this body should he decide that there will, in fact, also be representatives of the Black technikons and universities among the eight persons he appoints.

One could look at the reason the hon. the Minister, as well as the hon. member for Mossel Bay stated very clearly as to why there should be an advisory body. Both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Mossel Bay pointed to the rival demands of the universities and technikons and to the importance of co-operation, because of the important role of technological training, which undoubtedly affects all our people. If one rereads the speech of the hon. member for Mossel Bay, one sees that in it he motivates why this advisory body should be a comprehensive one in which Black universities and technikons should also be represented.

No, I did not speak about Black people at all.

The hon. member did not refer to Blacks …

You must not talk nonsense.

The hon. member should go and read his speech. All I want to say, is that if one reads the speech, one sees that all the reasons he advanced as to why the need existed for an advisory body of this nature, is equally, if not more, applicable to the training of Black workers for the growing industrial sector we should like to see in this country.

Not on your life!

The hon. member can go and read his speech. If one looks at the real reason given by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Mossel Bay, as well as the hon. member for Johannesburg West, as to why there should be this degree of co-ordination between universities and technikons in order not only to reconcile rival elements, but also to make proper provision for the further incorporation of people into the structure and for the co-ordination of institutions that train people in this developing world, one sees that all those arguments also apply a fortiori to the inclusion of Blacks on this advisory council.

I have already said that I find it surprising that we are creating a body here which, in fact, also has to advise the hon. the Minister, as well as the Minister of Education and Training, on Black technikons and universities, whilst the institutions concerned are not represented on the advisory council. Basically, I think it is a serious error of reasoning to create such a situation. Surely hon. the Minister would agree with me that if the position were reversed and other people were to give advice on matters affecting us on our behalf, we would not be content with that. As a thinking person, the hon. the Minister would readily concede that.

What is the issue here? I indicated in my Second Reading speech that the impression being created here, is that the Government consistently want to draw a dividing line between Black and non-Black. Whites, Coloureds and Indians are being grouped together, and Blacks are being left out. I indicated that although I reject that division as regards the constitutional aspects, looking at it form the Government’s own particular standpoint, one can understand why it wants to make that distinction in the constitutional sphere. We reject this, since we think it is a serious mistake to exclude Blacks. I can see no logical reason for Blacks being excluded from this kind of instrument in other spheres, for example, in this one, since the common interests of all our people—the hon. member for Mossel Bay made this very clear in his speech—Black, Asian or White, are involved in this matter.

The argument was put forward that because there is a separate ministry for Black education, which Black universities and technikons fall under, the exclusion of Blacks is justified. However, as the hon. the Minister himself pointed out, in terms of the Government’s constitutional proposals, there will be a separate White Minister responsible for White universities and technikons, a separate Coloured minister for Coloured universities and technikons, as well as a separate Asian minister for Asian universities and technikons. Therefore, despite the fact that within this framework, there will be a number of ministries for all three groups, the hon. the Minister has still seen fit to make provision for all three those groups in this umbrella body. The mere fact that another Minister and another ministry is responsible for Black education, is no reason to exclude Blacks. To be logical, in terms of the new constitutional dispensation, the Government should not give Asians and Coloureds representation in this new body either.

That is a non sequitur.

No. I have a simple reason for saying this. We have had three Ministers dealing with it. I am merely replying to the argument that because there is a separate ministry for Black affairs, viz. the Department of Education and Training, this is sufficient justification for excluding Blacks from representation on the advisory council. In view of the fact that in any case, there are going to be separate ministries and Ministers as regards Whites, Coloureds and Indians, it would be logical to exclude them from this advisory council for that reason. Consequently, there is no reason whatsoever for not affording Black universities and Black technikons proper representation on this advisory council.

Are you opposed to the inclusion of Coloureds and Asians?

I am opposed to going about it selectively. When we have general, common interests, we go about it selectively and we only include certain groups, whilst other groups are excluded. The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Mossel Bay are aware that when these matters are at issue, viz. matters relating to universities and technikons, they are matters of the utmost importance to everyone in this country. It is this aspect we are concerned about. We have said as much many times in the past. We shall also be debating this frequently in the future. Every Bill that comes before this House in which a distinction is made between Black on the one hand and non-Black on the other, will be opposed by this side of the House. We find that premise unacceptable, particularly in the sphere of communal interests.

I cannot understand that when it comes to matters where race and colour are not, or should not be a factor, since, in terms of the economic demands and requirements of the future, we are all aware that we should cooperate in this field, a racial element is always brought into it. The hon. the Minister must not say that we are the ones who bring the racial element into it. It is not we who do so. It is the Bill. It is the Bill the hon. the Minister has introduced. Sir, you will recall that during the Committee Stage, when we tried to extend this provision of the Bill so that Blacks could also be included, the hon. Chairman ruled that it was an extension of the Bill and that consequently it was unacceptable. It is therefore not we who brought this note into it. It is contained in the Bill itself. I just want to make this appeal once again: Is it not possible that when we discuss matters in regard to which race and colour should not play a role, not because of what I want, or whatever, but because of the communal nature of the interests that affect us all, we do not keep coming forward with an element or a provision which is basically racist by nature?

Under these circumstances, we have no other choice but to vote against this Bill in the Third Reading as well.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the Third Reading of the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council Bill. The hon. member Prof. Olivier has now raised the same points that he raised during the debate on the Second Reading as well as the Committee Stage, and the hon. the Minister replied to him on those occasions. We shall return later to Black representation in the overall set-up with regard to tertiary education in the Republic.

We have already voted a number of times on the clauses contained in this Bill, with the PFP and the CP voting together against the contents of this Bill. As the hon. the Minister spelt out very clearly, it must be understood that this is a cushioning body. As the hon. the Minister said during the Second Reading debate, this body is a committee which has to provide the Minister with advice in connection with certain matters. Apparently this aspect of a cushioning body has evaded the hon. member Prof. Olivier every time. The idea is to provide the Minister concerned with advice and it is clearly set out in clause 3 what this advice is concerned with. I shall return later to the exploitation of clause 3 by the CP and their newspaper Die Patriot. In future the role of this advisory body will become increasingly difficult and it will increasingly become a more imperative role in the Republic of South Africa. For that reason we must consider once again the people who will be appointed to this advisory council. They will have to comply with two very stringent requirements, namely those of objectivity and impartiality in connection with matters such as which institution should offer what course and the bais on which the financial cake should be sliced up. I see a great challenge awaiting this advisory council in the future, particularly as far as the financial aspects are concerned, and in particular because these financial aspects will become increasingly urgent as the competition for a larger slice of the financial cake intensifies. I also foresee this need in connection with the financial aspects of tertiary education becoming increasingly greater in the long term. The approach of the advisory council will therefore have to be to try to share out the financial cake among universities on the one hand and technikons on the other, but also among all the universities and all the technikons separately. The advisory council will also have to advise the Minister, and its powers are very clearly spelt out in clause 3. This matter has already been discussed very exhaustively and a large number of questions were replied to during the Second Reading debate as well as during the Committee Stage.

Education in the Republic of South Africa is a sensitive matter on all levels, primary, secondary and tertiary. It is a matter which readily arouses feelings and which can be used to set misrepresentations in motion. In this way, too, emotions can easily be aroused when education is being discussed. In this connection I wish to speak earnestly to the CP. During the recess Die Patriot wrested the provisions of this Bill completely out of context. In the process that newspaper made vigorous attempts to cast suspicion on the hon. The Minister of National Education. The spectre of integration is quite clearly being conjured up there, particularly by the hon. member for Rissik and his newspaper. The great integrationist, as we have also stated on a previous occasion, was the hon. member for Lichtenburg when he was Minister who, during the short period while he was Minister, admitted more Black people to White universities than had been admitted during the previous seven years. We have already mentioned these figures and we can mention them again if necessary. The spectre of integration is a useful spectre to conjure up just before the CP holds its great Transvaal congress, as they have already advertised it, tonight. However, I just wish to tell them that the illusions which they are conjuring up here in connection with integration are not appropriate to this Bill, because if this is integration in its worst form, then their deputy leader has participated in the process. They must not forget this tonight when they rise to speak in Pretoria.

In the process the hon. the Minister of National Education has been got at in a very reprehensible way by means of suspicion-angering implying that the hon. the Minister cannot be believed, and cannot be trusted with education either. I do not think that this is the way in which the situation should be dealt with. When the CP’s newspaper quotes they look only at the one side and quote only what was said by the CP and not the hon. the Minister’s reply on behalf of the NP. If it is alleged that this is balanced editorial comment on what happened in the House, I have serious reservations about that.

I am now quoting from Die Patriot of 15 July 1983—

This is why I say that only half of the truth is being told. In column 9788 of Hansard 1983 the hon. the Minister stated specifically that the universities involved in this matter were not all situated in the independent or self-governing Black States. Have hon. members ever heard of Vista and Medunsa? They were established in the White part of the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Education and Planning is responsible for them.

Consequently I wish to address a request to the hon. member for Rissik and ask him to speak to the editor of Die Patriot about making balanced comment on what takes place here in this House.

I should like to point out what then became of this matter. At this stage the reporting in this connection is in my opinion equivalent to the reporting of Pravda. It consists of attacks from all quarters based on distortion. Behind the distortion there is the spectre of integration. I hope the hon. member will be able to reply to me on this subject when he participates in the debate after me. At this stage I regard Die Patriot and Pravda in the same light. Both of them wish to overthrow the existing dispensation in the country. As has been said before, the attack from left and right is a simultaneous attack. I want to say to the hon. member that he should tell this to the people, because the people will not accept it. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the people will not accept this distorted reporting. However, let us leave it at that.

Next, I come back to the advisory council. In future the advisory council will be afforded opportunities to spell out very clearly what courses should be offered by which institutions. In particular I should then like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to provide the advisory council with general guidelines, particularly since all universities are trying to acquire engineering faculties as well as medical faculties. These are expensive faculties and for that reason I ask the hon. the Minister, through his department, to issue a policy statement in good time, if possible, to provide these people with guidelines since numerous questions are at the present being asked in regard to which university should develop where. The replies to such questions should be spelt out clearly over the short term.

The legislation makes provision for the recognition of a unique character for the Black institutions for tertiary education. This is primarily based on their approach to pedagogy, but at the same time, too, on the financial arrangements which have been made with them. During the discussion of his vote the hon. the Minister of Education and Training pointed out very clearly what the differences were. However, this does not take away the need for reciprocal discussion. Nor does it take away the need for the laying down of standards for tertiary education. Consequently I trust that, in view of this, the hon. the Minister of Education and Training will announce the Universities and Technikons Advisory council for Black education as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister gave the undertaking that he was going to appoint such a council. He also gave the undertaking that the council would be appointed and announced shortly. Since this spectre is being exploited by the CP as well as by the PFP, I request the hon. the Minister of Education and Training to devote specific attention to this council in the short term.

In addition to this I also wish to make representations to the hon. Ministers of National Education, Education and Training and Foreign Affairs and Information to hold talks with the rectors of the universities in Southern Africa—that is to say, with the rectors of the universities in Venda, Bophuthatswana and Transkei as well—so that we can obtain greater uniformity in standards in the Southern African context. This is essential because all these people are competing on the same market. Once we reach the stage where we have first-, second- and third-class universities, it will boomerang in regard to the training of people on tertiary level. I therefore wish to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to see whether a body cannot be established in which discussions can be held on the quality and standards of training. Those employing people who have received tertiary training should never under any circumstances be able to say, or create the impression that a difference exists in the training, for that will defeat the entire training strategy on a tertiary level. Such an advisory body or forum for discussion which is created to reflect on standards is a matter which in my opinion ought to receive attention, along with the establishment of a constellation of States and everything that goes with it.

Furthermore, it was good to learn from the hon. the Minister of National Education that his door and the door of his department was still open to the respective bodies, namely the COHE and the COTP, to come and discuss aspects peculiar to the universities and the technikons with him. The present situation therefore has not changed. Things which are peculiar to a university or a technikon and which cannot be dealt with by the joint advisory council can still be dealt with on the same basis as in the past. That fear which existed among certain university lecturers can therefore be eliminated. It is unfounded and there is no possibility that this door for direct liaison with the hon. the Minister and the committees concerned will be closed.

With these few words I should like to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was a few weeks ago that the House adjourned so that certain other matters could be dealt with. I think that in a certain sense it gave all of us an opportunity to take a very quiet look at the fundamental political standpoints of the respective parties. It gave us an opportunity to go to the electorate and review the legislation and politics of the past six months or so. In the light of this I want to say that in my opinion there is only one party that can, after the short adjournment, have returned strengthened, encouraged and optimistic about the outcome of the debates that have been conducted to date and are still going to be conducted this year and next year, and that is the Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party consistently adheres to the principle of the diversity of peoples in South Africa and has a policy that must be implemented on that basis. I think that the CP stands very firm on that issue. On the other hand, there is the PFP, which adheres very strongly to the principle of a unitary state. Then there is the governing party that finds itself more or less midway between these two basic points of departure, a party which is increasingly going to fade from the scene as a result of the standpoints of the CP and the PFP.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed made certain remarks directed against the CP. Let me tell the hon. member and the hon. the Minister that the CP naturally adheres to the standpoint adopted at Second Reading, i.e. that we are opposed to the principles of this Bill and are voting against is. Consequently we shall not be voting for the principles of this Bill at Third Reading either.

The hon. member referred to the CP and Die Patriot which, in the nature of things, is a very small voice at present in comparison with the large number of Afrikaans-language newspapers supporting the Government and the large number of English-language newspapers also supporting the Government. I listened, however, to the criticism he levelled against Die Patriot. I also read the articles in Die Patriot, and nowhere could I find Die Patriot deviating in any way from the truth in its reporting on this legislation. I think that Die Patriot’s version of this was quite correct. If the hon. member, however, wants to accuse Die Patriot of unbalanced reporting … [Interjections.] I hear the hon. member for Pretoria Central interjecting. Let me tell that hon. member if I made as poor a showing on television as he did … [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon. member that few members of the governing party have given the CP as much ammunition as specifically that hon. member in his dispute with Sabra and the defeat he suffered on television. If the governing party wants to accuse Die Patriot of unbalanced reporting, let me tell the hon. member that he does not read the Afrikaans newspapers. If there is an onslaught on South African public life by the Press today, if there is reporting that is not only unbalanced reporting, but also aims at keeping the truth from the electorate, it is that of the newspapers which are on the forefront in inspiring the governing party to put forward its standpoints.

What legislation are you discussing now?

If that hon. member had been listening, he would have heard that I was replying to what the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed said about the CP. The moment one starts reacting to what the governing party said, one is suddenly regarding as being out of order. When it comes to a well-balanced approach, therefore, the hon. member should rather not point a finger at Die Patriot.

The hon. member went on to say that the CP was conjuring up illusions; that we were conjuring up the apportion of integration and were quoting Government party arguments completely out of context. I want to say that if there is a party which, in public, before the electorate, consistently argues in accordance with the principles laid down by the NP, it is specifically the CP. The governing party is not presenting the electorate with a true picture of their standpoints, particularly as far as the new constitutional dispensation is concerned.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to range fairly widely. He must now come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly come back to the Bill and would like to reply to the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed. He said that the CP had wrenched this Bill completely out of context and that we were conjuring up the apparition of integration. Again they hid behind the hon. member for Lichtenburg and said that we were conjuring up illusions. I am just replying to that.

Order! Let me just point out to the hon. member that references to the proposed new constitutional dispensation are not relevant at the moment.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed says further that this advisory body will be a cushioning body. The only resemblance to a cushion is the fact that the governing party wants to give the public at large a cushion to sleep and dream on, so that they will not notice what the governing party is really busy doing in South Africa. During Second Reading we stated quite clearly that we were not opposed to advisory bodies for universities and technikons as such. In fact, when we take over the government of the country one day, this will also be part of our system. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is laughing. Let me tell him that he is busy dreaming, just as the governing party is busy dreaming. As I have said, we shall naturally also be doing that sort of thing, but why are we opposed to it in this case? Here the hon. the Minister is continuing with the policy propagated by Minister Jan Hofmeyr in the ’forties. What he propagated then, and had to relinquish, is being taken up again by this hon. Minister. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton may perhaps be sceptical about that, but what the PFP is today, the NP will be in 10 years’ time. The hon. member must just exercise a little patience.

We cannot divorce this legislation from the legislation the Minister has already introduced for the introduction of quotas for universities and technikons. This “bussing by quota” is part of the hon. the Minister’s plan for education in South Africa. Education is an integral facet of the pattern of life of a people, of a nation. This legislation is part of the preparation for the establishment of a new nation that the governing party wants to bring into being in this country, a nation of Whites, Coloureds and Indians. That is why it is necessary for the Government, by way of this legislation before us, also to create an advisory body to integrate the Whites, Coloureds and Indians into an organic unit as far as this aspect is concerned. That is the reason why we are opposed to it.

During Second Reading the hon. member for Rosettenville made three statements. He said that this advisory body was, in the first place, being brought into being to seek consensus. Consensus must be found: That is the key to the Government’s present-day attitude. In other words, the members of the three population groups who are going to serve on this proposed advisory body must also seek consensus as far as this aspect is concerned. The second statement that the hon. member made was that a multiplicity of bodies entailed a financial burden that could not be justified. In other words, a body for each of the three population groups would be too costly. For that reason we must, as far as tertiary education is concerned, have only one body on which the three population groups can find each other. A third statement the hon. member made was that the numbers of Whites in South Africa were decreasing, in contrast to an increase in the numbers of Coloureds and Indians. This legislation bears the stamp of “phasing out the White man in South Africa”. The numbers of Whites are decreasing and the numbers of Coloureds and Indians are increasing, and therefore provision must now be made for the phasing-out of the Whites. The hon. member Prof. Olivier is therefore quite right when, on the basis of his party’s standpoint, he asks that provision also be made for the Blacks. If we argue that because the Coloureds and Asians share in our economic activities, and we must have them join the Whites on an advisory body for the sake of economic growth in South Africa, we must not forget that there are millions of Black people who also share in our economic activities. We shall therefore also have to involve them if we want to ensure growth in our economy. As far as this aspect is concerned, I do not think that the governing party’s arguments hold any water at all. That is why I maintain that the relevant legislation is not as innocent as it may appear at first glance. It is actually part of the governing party’s plan to bring about integration, at least by beginning at the tertiary level of education, that level at which young students and school-leavers can be brought together in a unitary community. It is therefore part of the Government’s conditioning process.

Do you really believe your own tale?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs can say what he likes. He represents the so-called right wing of the NP. He knows, after all, that to make any progress in the Transvaal he must offer some resistance. [Interjections.]

I cannot get further than I am already.

Yes, it is true that the hon. the Minister must offer some resistance. [Interjections.] If I were in that hon. Minister’s shoes, I would also have felt anxious at having to watch my support dwindling as each day goes by. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to allege that this piece of legislation is not as innocent as the hon. the Minister of National Education, with his fine academic phrases, has tried to imply here. It is part of the governing party’s plan for the formation of a new nation of Brown people, Indians and Whites. The Government wants to start this unitary structuring at the tertiary level of education. For that reason the CP, as was the case at Second Reading, will also be taking a very strong stand against the relevant legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. nominated member of the PFP, Prof. Olivier, have advanced reasons to explain why their parties oppose the proposals contained in this legislation. They have been doing so from the outset and what is more, will stand together till the end, although for dissimilar reasons. The upshot will be, however, that they will continue to oppose the establishment of body of experts. We in the NP hoped—and, indeed we still hope—that this matter can be settled outside of politics, and this is, of course, because this matter is scientifically based. Therefore we hope to keep the matter out of politics.

However, the way in which the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member Prof. Olivier stood up here and said that they would fight this legislation tooth and nail, put an end to any hope that this matter could be settled outside of politics. I want to point out that the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed, too, has advanced his reasons as to why this legislation does deserve support. To me, therefore, it is quite clear that hon. members of the CP want to use every imaginable tactic to thwart the Government. I refer for example to the use of the name Die Patriot. In fact, that is a characteristic Afrikaans name, but they use it to propagate their own newspaper. It is a long time since I saw an edition of Die Patriot. All I can recall, however—and those hon. members must tell me whether I judged correctly or not—is an advertisement I saw in their newspaper. I often look at advertisements. A notable advertisement I saw in their newspaper was placed by an Indian business enterprise. [Interjections.] I want hon. members of the CP to tell us today whether they do in fact try to canvass advertisements among Indians. [Interjections.] Not one of our Afrikaans-language newspapers that supports the NP is dependent on Indians for advertisements.

Has an Indian ever given you a donation?

No, wait a moment, we are not dealing with donations now. We are speaking about advertisements. Hon. members of the CP must reply to us in this regard.

Moreover, the television service, too, is being dragged in, and it is being said by hon. members of the CP that they too would like to appear on television. They will have to tell us very clearly what they really envisage. What is the circulation of Die Patriot at the moment? If it is as wonderful a newspaper as they contend, why is that newspaper not a member of the Audit Bureau for Circulation, so that we can ascertain exactly what its circulation is? [Interjections.]

I contend that this legislation indicates very clearly that the NP has no secret plans up its sleeve. The NP is concerned solely with practical realities. As already indicated, the real policy of the NP is geared to consensus. We sat together with hon. members of the CP, when they were still members of the NP, on the Commission on Public Holidays. At the time they agreed with us. Together with Coloureds and Indians who served on that committee we reached consensus. The Coloureds and the Indians on that committee supported us in order to further this cause. This is also important with a view to cost, and the reduction of the number of Whites that we must give attention to. We do this precisely because we are realistic. We do not hold out chimerical pictures of homelands and such illusions. We live in a scientific and modem society and it is for that reason that we come forward with the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council, which is the only body that will furnish the hon. the Minister with advice. We do not say that the members of that council have to be Nationalists. We do not say that they have to be PFP people. We do not say they have to be Conservative people. We say they have to be realistic and they have to have both feet on the ground because there are 11 autonomous universities falling under the Department of National Education. Do the CP and the PFP want to tell us that it will not be possible to achieve better co-ordination and regulation of new development and growth of technikons by way of this new body that the hon. the Minister wants to create? Do they want to say that the universities and the technikons cannot be brought together in a scientific and practical way by the authorities? Do they want to deny that eventually these institutions may be organizationally linked to one structure in this way?

It is very clear that certain fields of work had to be demarcated, whether in respect of the Coloureds, the Indians or the Black people. These powers are now falling under central control. However, it is expressly stipulated in the legislation on technikons and universities that the institutions established by an Act of Parliament refer to technikons and universities for Whites, Coloureds Indians and Blacks. Where is the integration in that? Is it integration when we see matters as a whole and, ultimately, the Minister has to approach the Treasury …

You are so worn down by this time that you no longer know what integration is.

No, wait. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. At the moment the situation is that all the money comes from the Treasury.

You are afraid of Wimpie de Klerk.

I am not afraid of anyone. I am not afraid of the CP; I am not afraid of the Blacks; I am not afraid of the Coloureds and I am not afraid of the Asians, because I can maintain my own identity. One can maintain one’s own identity at all times. [Interjections.]

It is very clear that there are various functions of technikons and universities that have to be determined. There are certain sources of aid that have to be made available. Moreover, certain steps must be taken with regard to the utilization of public funds. Can the PFP and the CP not understand that there are tremendous costs to be taken into account. Can they not understand that it is clear that only two out of every three students in South Africa obtain their degree or diploma and that a third of the students do not pass their examinations? Can they not see that there must be co-ordination between the universities and technikons? Do they not realize that in 1981 it was already costing the universities R4 810 per student per annum, and that that cost was subsidized to the tune of 80% by the State? Is it not necessary to establish an advisory body to deal with all these matters so that people will be prepared for examinations and the failure rate reduced? Could this new advisory council not counter the incorrect choice of courses? Could this body not contribute towards the eventual resolution of the problem of the shortage of natural scientists, mathematicians and people trained in chemistry and physics? Are those hon. members unable to realize that industrialists want to improve their products in co-operation with technikons and universities? Do they not realize that advanced and modern technological training and research and improved methods must be made available?

The Government recognizes that it does not possess all the necessary skills to resolve all these complex problems. We do not wish to integrate. I am convinced of that. I am quite convinced that the NP does not wish to integrate, but that it wishes to preserve its identity in every sphere. The hon. members of the CP can shake their heads. It is quite clear to me. However, the Government wants to be advised by a body of experts.

It wants to plan matters relating to universities and technikons and by means of this same liaison body, seeks to eliminate any future conflicts. It is formulating an overall policy and is engaged in rationalization of planning and administrative duties. The Government is also concerned with the optimum utilization of available financial and labour resources. Recently there was a transport exhibition in Milner Part in Johannesburg where one could see how dependent we are on Coloureds, Asians and also Blacks. If we had not had that technical staff we would have gone under. We should not have been able to make an economic living in this country. Therefore we must all compete to obtain the support of the Government in this regard. An objective subsidy formula must be established. Something completely new must be created. A distinction must be drawn in these various fields. For that reason the Government acts as mediator among all the political decision-makers.

I wish the hon. member would keep this matter out of politics. I wish he could become more academic and return to reality. He must perceive that it is in the interests of the country as a whole that there should be co-ordinated planning and development in the field of tertiary education. This applies to all population groups. Then the reciprocal links and independence of tertiary education would not be detracted from.

I now come to the question about which the hon. member is afraid, viz. the question of Coloureds and Indians. Coloureds and Indians can now become full-fledged members of the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals, and that is what the hon. member is afraid of. It is clear that eventually there will still be a Minister of Internal Affairs and a Minister of Education and Training. Why can that advisory body not also advise the Ministers in question? Is that wrong? It is wrong to put together valuable advice in regard to Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks? Provision is being made for that. The Minister of Internal Affairs and the Minister of Education and Training are now being furnished with valuable advice. Is that wrong? Does that constitute integration? No, it is now being arranged that competing bodies face one another across a table. The funds of the State are too limited to have everything confused. The needs of all population groups must be seen as a whole. Economic interdependence is now being put into effect on a practical basis. The Government can now make responsible decisions, through the Minister, concerning new development, expansion and strategies. Technological development is giving rise to responsible forward planning.

In this regard I want to mention that the Cabinet or the Treasury does have a responsibility in regard to the allocation of all funds. At present there is only one Government, that is making all the decisions. Surely that is no. Therefore, what is the difference if the advice does go to the various Ministers, if each Minister receives coordinated advice, if they consult with one another and take decisions in consultation with the Treasury? What objection would there be to such an advisory body? Does that constitute integration? They could even appoint committees for geographical matters.

Then, if the CP wants to create homelands—after all, that is their policy—then they, too, could appoint such a committee to attend to those matters. It is very clear that this is a new departure for the NP. The NP is not going back to 1940 or to Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr. I am not going back 40 years and saying that we must integrate. I am in the present. I am in the year 1983. I face realities as they are at present. [Interjections.] I am aware that the number of Whites is dwindling.

That is capitulation.

That is not capitulation. It is consensus. It is negotiation that we will be conducting with these people.

I want to conclude by saying that industries must obtain practical experience from experts. We as the Government must have the right to know how experts feel about all these matters. Practical research projects, refresher courses, preparation classes and connecting classes will be introduced in respect of all technical training, and that includes all races. The NP has both feet on the ground and faces the future squarely. Although the hon. members of the CP differ with us, I hope that in the interests of the country they will, after all, realize that this matter is of the utmost importance. I just want to say to them that in this way the NP is going to guarantee technical training for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to what the hon. member for Rosettenville had to say, and I must say that I was very impressed with the one statement that he made. He said that one would have hoped that the various political parties represented in this house would have kept party politics out of the discussion in regard to this particular Bill. Unfortunately, Sir, there are some political parties, especially those that are more obsessed with their own survival than with the improvement of conditions in South Africa, which always read something racist in legislation that is introduced in this House. [Interjections.] We can understand that the PFP have accepted the fact that every piece of legislation introduced in this House has to be interpreted in a racist climate, a racist spectrum. They cannot divorce themselves from racism when it comes to good government in South Africa. It is quite evident from what hon. speakers on that side have said, in particular the hon. member Prof. Olivier here this afternoon, that they will not sanction any legislation in this House that does not contain within it the concept of Black domination. [Interjections.] In fact, they impose a Black veto on the minority rights of the Coloureds, Indians and Whites. It is for that reason that we can understand why they adopt the attitude that they do.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North who is present in this House this afternoon whether he still stands by the statement he made publicly during the recent short recess that if the referendum is lost in November, the PFP and the NP are going to form a coalition Government. [Interjections.] Sir, that really stretches probability to its utmost limits. Perhaps that hon. member will take the opportunity to explain to this House how he reconciles the attitude of his party in respect of this Bill with that statement that he made in public. That was really quite an extraordinary statement and misperception of the future.

As far as the CP are concerned, we can understand that they are afraid of anything that has to do with consensus government and negotiations with members of other groups in South Africa. Therefore, they are at least being consistent in their destructive approach towards government in South Africa.

I want to say that despite the inadequacies of this Bill that were highlighted by the NRP during both the debate on the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, we believe that the cardinal principle involved here is that we must improve tertiary education at both technikon and university level by establishing a joint advisory council. We believe that the merits of the establishment of such an advisory council outweigh any disadvantages that may be contained in the Bill at present. As is well known, this party does not believe in the principle of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, if one believes in evolutionary and constructive and positive change in South Africa, it is impossible to subscribe to the principle of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Therefore, when we look at the functions of this advisory body as enunciated in clause 3 of the Bill, it will be seen that there is in essence a certain devolution of power, certainly in terms of the determination of policy for technikons and universities, contained in this Bill. This party has long pleaded for an integral system of tertiary education in South Africa. When one examines the cost to South Africa in terms of a lack of co-ordination and liaison between the two pillars of education namely technikons and universities, it will be seen that the primary prerequisite and priority for today is closer and more effective planning and liaison between the Government and the technikons and universities. This Bill make provision for the creation of such an advisory infrastructure. We cannot afford the losses to society of students who fall between these two pillars of tertiary education. We have pleaded on many occasions for better co-ordination between technikons and universities in the interest of the skilled professional manpower in South Africa. We believe that this body, if one reads its responsibilities as set out in clause 3, will make a very significant contribution towards the improvement of tertiary education by eliminating overlaps and by highlighting deficiencies in our tertiary education system. For that reason alone we feel justified in giving our support to the Bill.

If they would examine the statistics in South Africa—I do not wish to repeat a Second Reading speech today—I think the hon. members of the PFP would agree that a 50% failure rate of first-year students at our universities is unacceptable and obviously the majority of those students who may be misguided in applying to universities for their tertiary education, could well have benefited from tertiary education at technikon level had there been closer co-ordination between the universities and the technikons.

I do not believe for one minute that the saner, more logical and intelligent hon. members of the PFP would disagree that it is absolutely essential for a First World high-technological society that it should have coordinated planning at tertiary level. That is why I cannot understand that the fundamentalists in that party consistently railroad positive developments in South Africa by dragging in the perverted racist viewpoints of the liberal lefts of the PFP. I think the time has come that the more sensible hon. members of that party should take a stand to start telling South Africa what good sense there is in certain legislation rather than just to be towed in the wake of certain hon. members of that party who cannot differentiate between positive development and racist obstruction in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I see the hon. member for Greytown believes that he represents Natal because he managed to get together 22 people at a public meeting in Natal. I want to tell the hon. member that at a lunch-time meeting in Pietermaritzburg we had 70. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that we were fascinated to see that at his well publicized public meeting in Musgrave with the hon. leader of that party in Natal they were also able to scrape together only 22 bodies.

That is a lie.

Order! The hon. member for Durban Central must withdraw that remark.

Sir, I withdraw it.

I shall save the hon. member further embarrassment and I shall not continue to refer to the meetings which they are having in Natal. I just want to add that this party supports the third Reading of the Bill because we believe it is in the interest of the tertiary education of all population groups that we should have this co-ordinating and advisory committee. We look forward to the establishing of this body at an early date and we look forward to hearing from the hon. the Minister from time to time in reports which will be tabled in the House regarding the recommendations made by this advisory body. We believe that good government in South Africa can only be approached from a positive point of view and therefore, as this party has consistently done in the past when it is in the interest of South African citizens irrespective of race, colour and creed, that certain legislation be adopted, we shall vote for this Bill in the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Durban North for his constructive speech. I also thank him for his support.

In his speech the hon. member for Rissik referred to the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed, who is the future hon. member for North Rand. The hon. member for Rissik is not a stupid person. He is a pleasant person but he has earned himself the reputation of being “dom Daan”. It is his own fault. I say he is not a stupid man. Someone who once had to address an audience asked how he should behave and was advised to assume both extreme ignorance and extreme intelligence. This hon. member always assumes that we are extremely stupid, but we are not.

I should also like to refer to the hon. member for Rissik’s concept the term “cushioning body” which the hon. the Minister used in his Second Reading speech. His interpretation of what a cushioning body is was probably transmitted to him by the behaviour in this House of the former hon. member for Waterkloof.

In the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister pointed out that the purpose of this legislation was to establish universities and technikons advisory council which would be an expert ministerial advisory council on universities and technikons. [Interjections.]

Order!

This body has to advise the hon. the Minister of National Education on matters affecting Whites, and in other cases it has to advise the Minister of Internal Affairs in connection with Coloureds and Indians. It has to advise the Minister of Education and Planning on Blacks.

I think that this body could very easily become one of the most pre-eminent bodies in South Africa. In the first place it is concerned with the planning and the co-ordination of training for highlevel manpower. It is also concerned with bodies in which the greatest single pool of research potential is situated. Studies have shown that so much research is being done at universities that the largest research publication output comes from universities, and does so at a relatively low cost.

The Universities Advisory Council which is being abolished in terms of this legislation has given the State excellent advice for many years and I believe the hon. the Minister will find suitable people to appoint to the new advisory council to continue this work.

The new council has a far wider and more difficult task than the UAC which is being abolished in terms of this legislation. I should like to refer to certain general aspects of the task of the new advisory council. The central planning and co-ordination that have to be undertaken by this body, may not encroach upon the autonomy of the existing universities. Our established universities all arose out of communities at the insistence of private groups, and continue to exist in terms of private legislation piloted through this House. Those universities set great store by their autonomy. Central long-term planning and co-ordination should therefore not encroach upon the autonomy of the universities. The universities all want to have their own character and serve their own communities. A balance must be struck between particular or own interests and national or general interests. This new body may therefore not act prescriptively, but will have to stimulate the climate of freedom and a search for knowledge at universities, so that there will also be interaction as far as planning is concerned between this body and the universities and technikons.

The powers of the new council are defined in clause 3. I made a few observations about clause 3(1)(c) during the Second Reading debate. The matter raised here concerns the academic fields in which universities and technikons should operate. I should like to add to this that there is a real danger that there may be uneconomic duplication and overlapping of research activities between universities and technikons in future. It is said that technikons should do so-called practical research whereas universities should do fundamental research. Now we all know that practical research relies on fundamental research. In addition we are well aware that practical research usually proceeds from fundamental research in a very natural way.

UTAC will have to do its work against the background of the present and expected high-level manpower requirements in South Africa. As a result it will have to ensure that it remains well informed of these requirements. Once there is clarity on these needs, UTAC can advise the Government on the methods which have to be employed in order best to satisfy these needs.

The manpower situation in South Africa is complex, and a systematic approach to the pre-estimation of requirements is definitely very necessary. Manpower requirements in our country are subject to various restrictions. In the first place it is a fact that recent, objective, factual data is not always available, and for planning purposes it is necessary to rely on extrapolations of historic trends. I may be generalizing here, because this also applies in other developing countries owing to the tremendous acceleration of the rate of technological and economic development. However, we in South Africa are also entering an era in which many social changes are taking place and in which a new political dispensation is also on its way. Against this background we now have to make pre-estimation where historic trends are not valid to extrapolate into the future.

I also want to quote from what Dr. H. J. J. Reynders said in the foreword to the National Manpower Commission’s report on highlevel manpower in South Africa. He said—

During the Second Reading debate we also discussed the question in connection with the new subsidy formula for universities, particulars of which are unfortunately not yet available to us. In this connection and in conclusion I just want to express the hope that as far as the future financing of universities and technikons is concerned primary consideration will be given to two objectives in particular. In the first place successful—and I want to emphasize successful—academic study has to be rewarded. In the second place we have to continue financing in such a way that we stimulate research.

Sir, it gives me pleasure to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria East said one thing with which I agree, that was that universities should have a character of their own and that each should serve its own community. Then the hon. member went on to say, among other things, that we were living in a period of great political and social changes and that as a result of those changes, we had to make certain adaptations as a people. In saying that, the hon. member contradicted every word spoken by the hon. member for Rosettenville. Listening to the speech of the hon. member for Rosettenville, I was strongly reminded of Rip van Winkle, who slept for many years. It would appear to me that the hon. member for Rosettenville is not yet aware of what has been happening in this country over the past two years. I should like to tell the hon. member that he should read Die Patriot more frequently. Then he will discover that changes have been taking place and that it is in fact his own party that wishes to bring about these changes in South Africa in order to replace this Parliament, which is the Parliament of the Whites in South Africa, with a multiracial tricameral Parliament. In the same way, whereas we have separate councils for the universities at the moment, this Bill seeks to replace these separate councils with a multiracial council consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier said that his party, the PFP, wants Blacks to be included in this advisory body. As against this, it is the policy of the NP and the CP that every Black people should have a right to self-determination within its own territory. There is a great need for qualified people in virtually every walk of life within these Black territories today. We must not drain off the best minds among the Blacks to the White areas to serve White institutions. Black leaders in every walk of life should be trained to serve their respective peoples. If we want the policy of separate development to succeed, this is an indispensable element. As I have said, there is unlimited opportunity within the Black States today for every Black man, to whatever people he may belong. In almost every academic and technical sphere, there are unlimited opportunities waiting to be utilized by the Blacks. The CP says that the best in each people should be utilized in the service of that people and fatherland within the borders of that father-land. Furthermore, we say that Black academics and advisors should be utilized in an active as well as an advisory capacity within their own States, and for that reason we cannot agree with the hon. member Prof. Olivier and his party at all when they say that Black people should be appointed to advisory councils together with Whites. This is diametrically opposed to the policy of separate development. If it is the standpoint of the Government that Black experts should be utilized within the borders of their own fatherland and in connection with the affairs of their own people, in the academic sphere as well, the same ought to apply to the Coloureds and the Indians. One can only throw overboard the principle of separate development with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians if one appoints them to joint advisory councils, together with the Whites. The hon. member for Rosettenville should take cognizance of this: When they say that the Blacks should serve their own population groups, they are throwing those principles overboard in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians by throwing overboard the policy of separate development. That is why I say that the NP has thrown overboard its policy of separate development with regard to the coloureds and the Indians, and in its place they have accepted the political integration of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians within one common fatherland.

What about the Chinese?

The hon. member should put that question to the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. He is the one who said that while Indians were not welcome in the Free State, the Chinese were. I submit, therefore, that the NP has thrown overboard the policy of separate development with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians. This Bill is one of the best illustrations of that.

it is the standpoint of the CP that education is one of the most important own affairs of a people. The Black people should have their own educational institutions within their own areas, from primary school level up to university level. From primary school level up to university level, the teachers and lecturers should be members of that people. At the same time, the councils that serve education in that particular State should consist of members of that people. Surely this should be the case because those people are best acquainted with their own needs. The CP goes further and says that the Coloureds and the Indians, too, should have their own schools, colleges, technikons and universities, and their own councils, in their own areas. In the same way, the Whites should have their own schools, their own colleges, universities and councils within their own area. The CP recognizes the right to self-determination of the other peoples. We are in favour of self-determination for the Zulu, for the Tswana and the Xhosa, etc.

Order! The hon. member must not take that argument with regard to the Black peoples too far. It is not relevant to this legislation.

The CP wishes the Coloureds and the Indians to have the right to self-determination with regard to their own education as well, as they have it with regard to all the other matters that are of specific interest to them within their own fatherlands.

Where are those father-lands?

That hon. Minister keeps asking where the fatherland of the Coloureds is going to be. But I want to ask him to help prevent the establishment of a Black city of 300 000 people at Swartklip, because Swartklip is situated within the geographical sphere of the Coloureds.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Sir, that hon. Deputy Minister is implicated in this.

Order! The hon. member must not allow himself to be drawn into a discussion of matters not pertaining to the Bill.

Allow me to say that history will blame that hon. Deputy Minister one day …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

Sir, we want the Coloureds and the Indians to have self-determination with regard to their own education as well, and when we say that we want the other population groups to have this, we demand it for the Whites as well. The hon. the Minister has said, with regard to self-determination—

We reject this mixed self-determination to which the hon. the Minister is referring here. We say that we want the Coloureds and the Indians to have self-determination with regard to education as well. For that reason we also demand self-determination for the Whites with regard to every aspect of their education.

In conclusion, therefore, I want to state that we cannot support this Bill because it gives effect to integration, a constantly increasing degree of integration in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kuruman has given us a fine illustration here this afternoon of the way in which one can come to grief when one ventures into a debate without having prepared oneself. [Interjections.] If I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Kuruman said that the CP regarded education as the most important own affair. According to hon. members of the CP, however—this is the way I understand it—there are only own affairs and nothing else. Therefore all affairs are own affairs.

Yes, in each group’s own fatherland.

By alleging that education is the most important own affair, the hon. member for Kuruman was implying, therefore, that there are other affairs as well which are not own affairs. [Interjections.]

You are talking absolute nonsense now.

No, hon. members of the CP really must decide now what they want. [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon. members of the CP must decide whether this new dispensation of theirs, a dispensation in which the Whites will be the sole decision-makers with regard to matters which they refuse to recognize as being of common concern, is going to be a dispensation in which the Whites will exercise exclusive authority and will accept responsibility for decision-making. They must decide whether this is going to be the case until that unattainable ideal of theirs is realized one day, when the population groups that have been denied participation in the political process will receive from them that homeland of their dreams.

Once you believed in that dream yourself. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members who have supported this Bill. The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed referred, among other things, to the importance of involving the university principals of the independent States in the consultation between the universities, in order to ensure that equal standards are maintained in Southern Africa in this sphere. I welcome that idea. In fact, a Multilateral Technical Committee has already been established at an inter-state level, a committee which is active between South Africa and its neighbouring States, and which engages in consultation concerning, among other things, training matters, including university affairs. This is consultation between independent States, and it is very useful consultation, in the process of which attention is also given to university co-operation and comparable university standards.

I want to thank the hon. member for Rosettenville for his very enthusiastic reference to the large number of extremely important matters which require—and having listened to the hon. member, on might almost say cry out for—proper co-ordination and systematic handling in the interests of universities and of technikons; of tertiary education in general, therefore.

With his customary expertise, the hon. member for Pretoria East indicated how difficult the new task of the new council would be; what additional demands would be made on this council. The hon. member’s contribution will certainly be kept in mind when this new council commences its activities.

†The hon. member for Durban North has also expressed his party’s support of this measure, for which I wish to thank him. In particular I should like to thank him for his reference to the vital importance of better co-operation and co-ordination—one could perhaps even refer to it as two-directional traffic—between the technikons and the universities as the two main groups of institutions in the tertiary educational sector. In this way we can ensure that our manpower potential will really be directed to that institution which is most suitable to the particular needs and abilities of the manpower concerned.

*I wish to emphasize again that in accepting the Bill which is before us, this House is giving effect to the basic approach of the Government that the universities and technikons also form part of education as an own affair of every population group, because the universities and technikons form part of the educational system of every particular population group, and that, as is in fact clearly evident, the advice of this council will therefore be conveyed to the respective Ministers of Education responsible for the education of the respective population groups. However, while recognizing the need for separate educational institutions, in the tertiary sector as well, the governing party also accepts the reality that there is a large measure of interdependence—in the financial sphere as well as in the field of expert manpower—which characterizes these systems in their relation to one another. That is why it is essential, as long as one and the same central Government takes the decisions in connection with policy, and especially financial policy and development policy, in respect of the various universities and technikons, that as the central decision-maker it should also receive proper centralized advice. It is one of the peculiarities of the CP’s approach that while not objecting to the fact that advice will be given, they object to the fact that this advice will be co-ordinated and that general co-ordinated policy advice will be given to the Government by this advisory council. However, there is one Government which takes the decisions, as the hon. member for Rosettenville has very clearly emphasized again. There is one Government which takes the decisions concerning the universities and technikons of all four population groups, and surely it is logical, therefore, that that one Government, the various Ministers of which take the decisions, should also receive its advice from a single co-ordinated advisory body. How can one object, when the decisions are taken by one Government, to that Government being advised by one advisory body? The CP is indulging in illogical, irrational thinking which one really cannot understand.

It would appear to me as if the hon. member for Rissik in particular is hampered by his inability to distinguish between co-ordination and integration. Surely there must be co-ordination between various systems with a degree, even a large degree, of inter-dependence. Integration only takes place when one co-ordinates in such a way that the separate identities, the separate existence and the separate functioning of the various systems would be abolished. The differentiation of the systems is in fact built into this Bill, but that hon. member is simply unable to understand this.

This is also in line with the political argument which he advanced here today. The hon. member for Rissik said that the CP was consistently developing its argument on the basis of the principles laid down by the NP. What principles are those? Is it the principle that there should be co-responsibility with regard to matters of common interest, as they accepted with the NP in 1977? Is it the principle that there should be an electoral college representing Whites, Coloureds and Asians to elect one State President, as was accepted in 1977? Is it the principle that three different Parliaments should all accept co-responsibility for joint legislation, as they accepted in 1977? Is it the principle of the labour legislation which they accepted with hon. members on this side of the House over a number of years and which they now repudiate? Is it the principle of the South West approach which they accepted and which they now repudiate? Or is it the principle of the absurdity of a Coloured homeland which their leader rejected under his signature—there was even a picture of him—in April 1981?

You are a fine one to talk!

But he was not satisfied with that. Even in November 1981 he expressly stated again, before the Transvaal Congress of the NP, that it would not work. Three months later, without having conducted any study or research, he did an about-face and said: “This Coloured homeland is the great vision of the future which I am giving you.” This is the party which claims to be guided by the principles laid down by the NP in the past. Then they go on to allege that the NP is following the principles, policy and approach of Jan Hofmeyr.

Yes, of course. You are a little Jan Hofmeyr.

Is Jan Hofmeyr the man who brought about separate and independent States for the various Black peoples? Is Jan Hofmeyr the man who stood for separate systems of education and separate schools for the various population groups? Is Jan Hofmeyr the man who stood for separate residential areas? Is Jan Hofmeyr the man who stood for a constitutional dispensation with separate voters’ rolls, separate constituencies and separate chambers? [Interjections.] Judging by these allegations made by the hon. member, it seems to me that one can sit in this House for so long that one can begin to suffer from political senility.

I also wish to refer briefly to the criticism expressed by the PFP through the mouth of the hon. member Prof. Olivier. The Government considers it essential that a co-ordinating advisory body should advise the Government with regard to the whole tertiary sector for all population groups in so far as the Government is responsible for decisions affecting the institutions of those population groups. As long as it remains responsible for Black universities and Black technikons as well, this co-ordinating body must therefore be enabled to give advice regarding the universities and technikons of that population group.

I pointed out earlier on in this session, during the discussion of other Bills, that the entire system in terms of which Black universities and Black technikons operate differs materially in two respects from that under which universities and technikons for Whites, Asians and Coloureds operate. The first difference is that they enjoy a lesser degree of academic administrative autonomy. In the second place, their system of financing is also different. They do not function in terms of the same financing formula as other universities. As a result of the fact that Black universities and Black technikons have a different administrative and financing system, therefore, it is simply not practicable for them to be fully integrated into the advisory structures which exist for the other three population groups. However, I have also pointed out that my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Education and Training, is establishing advisory structures of their own for the universities and technikons for Blacks under his control. In the process, suitable representation will be provided for those universities and technikons on the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals as well. In this way, Black universities and Black technikons will also participate in the designation, by the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals, of their representatives on the new Universities and Technikons Advisory Council.

There are other possible ways of bringing representation about, but the Government has deemed it necessary to establish this new advisory council even at this early stage, so that it may be able from the start to give coordinating advice with regard to the tertiary sector in its totality, and so that it may be able, even at this stage, to give consideration to universities and technikons for Blacks in formulating its advice, so that the four interdependent systems of education can be properly surveyed. As the hon. the Minister of Education and Training finalizes his structures for his institutions, we shall provide for the inclusion of spokesmen for Black universities and Black technikons on the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council.

I want to emphasize that the Government recognizes that since this body will also advise on technikons and universities for Blacks, the necessary provision will be made in future to enable those institutions to have direct or indirect representation, like universities and technikons of other population groups, in the establishment of this advisory council.

I also wish to refer briefly to a fact which I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, i.e. that the establishment of this comprehensive Universities and Technikons Advisory Council, which will deal with tertiary education for all four population groups, is a very important new step in our system of control over education in South Africa. We cannot deny that it is clear in retrospect that there used to be a certain degree of fragmentation and a lack of co-ordination in the planning of our university development and technikon development as a whole. In future we shall have to take into consideration the fact that the resources required for the operation of these institutions are scarce. The problem is in the first place one of limited financial means. In the second place, the problem is also one of a limited number of trained experts to staff these institutions. Thirdly, there is the problem of the interdependence of the various markets which will employ the people who are trained at the institutions. Therefore it is essential that in planning for the future, we should have an overall view and a comprehensive understanding of the way in which the development of the universities or technikons of one population group will affect those of the other population groups and the situation as a whole. Therefore I want to emphasize once again that it will be the primary function of this council to express its opinion, in its advice to the Ministers concerned, on legislation affecting universities and technikons which will provide the basic structure required for the functioning of those institutions. In addition, attention will be given to important matters mentioned by hon. members, such as the division of functions between universities and technikons, so as to eliminate unwarranted duplication by the one of functions falling within the sphere of the other. In this way I may mention that over the past year or two, at the instigation of the Universities Advisory Council, the universities have been considering the elimination of undergraduate diplomas, because the view is held that with a few exceptions, undergraduate diplomas fall within the sphere of the technikons and that universities should concentrate on undergraduate study courses which can be offered at the graduate level. Attention is also being given to unnecessary duplication in fields such as pharmacy, in which both institutions have historically participated, optometry, which is offered to the various population groups at different educational institutions, and the fine and performing arts, in respect of which there is also a large measure of duplication.

It is also important that this advisory council should give attention in draft legislation, to the relationship between the institutions and the State as manifested in the provision of financial support by the State, in the approval given by the State for the introduction of new study courses and new faculties, and in the representation of the State on the councils of the various institutions. I want to mention in passing that separate councils for the institutions of each population group, which the hon. member for Kuruman pleaded for towards the end of the debate, are an established fact. At the tertiary level, all these institutions are autonomous and are administered and controlled by their own councils. There is no problem in that connection.

It is also important that in addition to giving advice on legislation, this council should concentrate on the expansion, the growth and the development of tertiary education. As hon. members have indicated, this new council will take into consideration the requirements of society, such as the need for manpower, but also the need for spiritual and cultural values and sources of strength and for objective and loyal criticism and independent opinions expressed from within these institutions on the problems of society. The council will have to ensure that these needs of society are adequately brought to the attention of our tertiary sector and that our universities and technikons give attention to these needs of society in their planning of courses, so that they may not be isolated ivory towers, but institutions which will strive, in terms of the motto of one of these universities, to use their knowledge in order to be of service.

Finally, I want to refer to a matter which was emphasized by the hon. member for Pretoria East, namely that the advice of this advisory council will be aimed in particular at ensuring the existence of a rational system of financial support which will on the one hand promote the administrative autonomy of these institutions and will not interfere unnecessarily with their internal administrative decisions, but which will on the other hand be adequate and comprehensive enough to enable these institutions, with the aid of State support, to provide the high-level services which our country so urgently needs. This advisory council will constantly have to bring the necessary facts to the attention of the Government to ensure that our tertiary education receives the necessary priority within our total State expenditure, but also, on the other hand, that when demands are made on behalf of tertiary education, due regard will be had to the limited ability of the State to provide these funds. This advisory council will also have to ensure that the provision of financial aid to our universities and technikons takes place in a way which will promote the highest possible productivity of those institutions. Therefore it must be done on conditions in terms of which a favourable success rate in the continuation of their studies by the students will be recognized in the subsidy formula, and in terms of which academic failure and unnecessarily high failure rates will also affect the degree of financial support which the universities concerned will continue to receive. With regard to the aid made available to them through the agency of the advisory council, therefore, the universities and technikons must constantly realize that they are being called to account by the State as well as the public with regard to their effectiveness and the success with which they utilize these important financial and manpower resources in the interests of and according to the requirements of the State.

I should like to emphasize once again that the term which has been used here somewhat lightheartedly, namely that the advisory council will be a “cushioning body”, is a very important one. The council is a cushioning body which is intended to avoid, as far as possible, unnecessary conflict between individual tertiary institutions on the one hand and the political decision-makers, the Ministers concerned, on the other, and to ensure, by means of objective expert advice given by the members of the advisory council, the achievement of the greatest possible measure of satisfaction in the sense that the needs of the technikons and the universities will be properly evaluated and conveyed to the State. It is also the intention that the State will accept the advice of the body without favouring or giving priority to any particular institution, in order to arrive at an equitable decision.

I believe that one of the great assets of our system of educational management in the past was that the old Universities Advisory Council, which is now to be replaced, was extremely successful, by virtue of its status, its expertise and its authority, in performing this cushioning function, with the result that conflicts in connection with university expansion and conflicts in connection with financial support for universities were virtually unknown, thanks to this objective, expert cushioning role played by the advisory council between the various institutions on the one hand and the State, the political decision-maker, on the other.

I am convinced that in promoting the education of each of our population groups in South Africa at this highest level of the tertiary sector, we shall derive very great benefit from this in future, that it will play an important new role in promoting purposeful, effective and successful university planning and technikon planning in each of the various educational systems of the various population groups in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with this clause, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what he intends doing about the composition of the board. How many members does he intend placing on this board? I should like to recommend the representation of a number of members on the board. I shall deal with this matter later. I just want to say now that representation of the board should be as wide as possible. I should also like to say that while we agree with this Bill entirely I want to deal with the question of one star and two star hotels. I feel that some form of regulation should be drawn up …

Order! Is the hon. member speaking to clause 1 now?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I speak in general, as an introduction to what I am going to say on the other clauses. I am going to deal with the composition of the board and make my recommendations. I am also going to deal with the question of one star and two-star hotels and how they should be formed. I am also going to deal with the problems that arise as a result of certain recommendations that the hon. the Minister has made.

Mr. Chairman, the CP would have supported this legislation in all its stages on the first day, but then a few things happened. One was that the hon. the Minister said, in regard to clause 3, that he was going to appoint a mixed board, something we are totally opposed to in principle. Furthermore, when a positive speech was made by our side, some of the hon. members, inter alia the hon. member for Boksburg and the hon. member for Caledon, made absolutely derogatory, insulting and personal remarks. This afternoon there is plenty of time to speak. Each of them can speak about these clauses at some length in order to restore their honour.

What are you talking about now, Jan?

I am allowed to talk politics in my first speech during the Committee Stage. Those are the rules of the House, if the hon. member does not know it.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to repeat the Second Reading debate, though.

No, Sir, I am not going to do that, but I do just wish to put a few things straight. I just wish to set matters straight in regard to those two hon. members.

I now come back to clause 1. I shall deal with it point by point. Those hon. members should not gain the impression that we are not positive enough to promote tourism in South Africa in all respects. Tourism is one of the five things in life and I do not see the need for people to get personal. I do not see the need for them to disparage everything, either. We shall deal with each of these points in the course of the discussion of the clauses. There are several clauses to which amendments have been moved, but at this stage I want to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The hon. the Minister told us—he indicated it in his Second Reading speech—that the S.A. Tourism Board was being established to replace, inter alia, the Tourist Corporation and the Hotel Board. The hon. the Minister went on to say that there was insufficient time to regulate the matter properly. Surely that is an extremely feeble excuse that the hon. the Minister has offered here. Surely we cannot abolish two Acts, do away with a few statutory provisions and then contend that there is insufficient time to regulate matters properly. So now we have to consolidate matters as we go along, and also pay attention to other aspects which should still be covered.

Consequently I request the hon. the Minister to accept my proposed amendment and to substitute Satour for the name S.A. Tourism Board. Satour is a name which is well-known throughout the world. It is a body whose name appears in all our overseas tourist bureaus; a name which also appears in magazines world-wide. It is a short and concise name, a name which has entered colloquial usage. Therefore we want to enquire from this hon. Minister why he is now proposing such a long name for this board. By way of comparison I want to refer in passing to the situation in the private sector. For example, we have abbreviated Iscor’s name. In fact, it was my privilege to suggest it in this House. The full name is very long and confusing. It is the South African Iron and Steel Industrial Corporation Limited. Initially, in correspondence, that terribly long name had to be typed out in its entirety. In my opinion the name S.A. Tourism Board is also much too long. So why can we not substitute for it a shorter name, Satour, for example. If we were to do that, a lot of time would be saved. We would also be able to economize on typing and save on unnecessary extra expense. After all, the name S.A. Tourism Board says nothing more that, for example, the name Satour does. In fact, I believe that if we really wanted a long name it would have been far better to retain the name S.A. Tourist Corporation.

I can tell a few anecdotes about my experience with long names. In the sixties, when I was still a secretary of a group of companies, we had to do with the name Underground Water and Running Corporation of South Africa, (Pty.) Limited. The poor telephonist had to repeat the whole name every time she answered the telephone. In this case, too, we can abbreviate the name substantially. Does the hon. the Minister realize, for example, what expense such a long name gives rise to in the long run? It will cost even more to replace all the printed matter once again, whereas we do have the opportunity now to consolidate matters and to incorporate the Hotel Board into this body. Then, surely, we can retain the short name Satour. So much for the name of the board.

Then there is a further question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. If the Hotel Board—and I shall refer to its objectives later on—were indeed to be totally abolished and replaced, I believe certain problems would arise. The hon. the Minister did in fact say that the Hotel Board was going to be replaced. However, as I have already said, there are certain things in the hotel industry which are problematical, and which the new S.A. Tourism Board is going to deal with. Therefore, at this stage I feel that the hon. the Minister has made a mistake. I did in fact mention this during the Second Reading. These matters should have been consolidated from the outset. The S.A. Tourist Corporation was established in 1947 and is therefore an old institution. Consequently I wish to request the hon. the Minister to accept the proposed name as contained in my amendment. I could elaborate further on this matter, Mr. Chairman, but I will first wait and see what the reaction of the hon. the Minister is to this request of mine.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that an hon. member who has been a member of this House for a long time now, a person who knows the procedures of this House well and knows how to evaluate legislation, should come with a proposal such as the one with which the hon. member for Sunnyside occupied our attention this afternoon. Firstly, in no way is it the intention of this Bill to abolish the Hotel Board or Satour, as the hon. member suggested. I made it very clear in my Second Reading speech that the functions of the Hotel Board and the South African Tourist Corporation, as well as those of the Tourism Branch of my department, are merely being transferred to the newly established board. It has nothing to do with consolidation. Consolidated legislation would indeed have left us with one piece of legislation, whereas at the moment these matters are contained in two different pieces of legislation, but the functions remain the assignment or task as impressed in the legislation pertaining to the South African Tourist Corporation and the Hotel Board. That is the first point.

Secondly, the hon. member advocated the retention of the name “Satour”, and I can understand that. I agree with him fully, and we shall under no circumstances be doing away with the name “Satour”. “Satour” is a trade-mark which has been registered with the Registrar of Trade Marks since 1949. It is a name which has been used in the marketing of South Africa and our tourism activities for 35 years now and we shall continue to use this trade-mark, a trade-mark which over the years has, I believe, carved out a special niche for itself in the international community. For that reason we shall not be looking round for new names. “Satour” is not derived from “South African Tourist Corporation” but from “South African Tourism”. It will also be retained within the context of the South African Tourism Board. The board will, in respect of its umbrella function, be availing itself of various marketing instruments of which the trademark “Satour” will remain an important one. I can therefore give the hon. member the assurance that this name will be retained on our printed matter, in our offices overseas and in our marketing campaigns and that the new board will continue to carry out activities under the name “Satour”.

With that I think I have given a clear reply to the hon. member’s suggestion and indicated it is superfluous or unnecessary to effect any changes to the Act. Hon. members will notice that in terms of the relevant Act the South African Tourist Corporation does not go by the name of “Satour”, but rather “The South African Tourist Corporation”. “Satour” is only the trade-mark that was used, and it will also be used by the new South African Tourism Board.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in the preamble it is stated very clearly—

But that has nothing to do with the name “Satour”.

The hon. the Minister told me that I knew the rules and ought to know how to interpret legislation. Well, in the preamble it is stated very clearly that they are going to be abolished. Also during the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister told us that as far as this body was concerned …

Read clause 9.

I am coming to that. The hon. the Minister told us that the new board, when it was established, would merely further consolidate the Hotels Act and the South African Tourist Corporation Act and that the hon. the Minister himself did not have the time to do it. He said that it was being held over until the new board was established.

I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister indicated that the name “Satour” would continue to exist. For that we thank him. We are pleased about it. I think it is good publicity for South Africa. The name is well-known throughout the world and is really an asset.

The question is whether we cannot register an abbreviation of “South African Tourism Board”, as we have done in the case of “Iscor, Ltd.” Why can we not change this? Why must it specifically be the “South African Tourism Board”? We could just as well speak of “Satour”.

It is registered as “Satour”.

But instead of “The South African Tourism Board” we can say we are establishing a board which will be called “Satour”. It is much shorter. At the moment we are faced with an ambiguity. There is the South African Tourism Board—a long name—and, as the hon. the Minister said, there is the name “Satour” which is registered. I do want to ask that we use the shorter name instead of the long name for which provision is now being made in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have already made it quite clear. I do not think I can make it any clearer by repeating it. The board has various powers conferred upon it in terms of this legislation. The legislation is transferring the functions of the Hotel Board and the functions of the S.A. Tourism Board. The hon. member need only look at clause 9. He can also look at clause 14, from which it is clear that the application of the legislation refers to the provisions of the S.A. Tourist Corporation Act, 1947, and the Hotels Act, 1965. The functions of these respective bodies are being transferred to the S.A. Tourism Board.

As far as the name “Satour” is concerned, I have given the hon. member the assurance that this trade mark is registered. It is one of the instruments which the board will avail itself of in carrying out its functions. The board will also avail itself of various other instruments. There is no sense in changing the name “S.A. Tourism Board” to “Satour”. That is all I want to say about that.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I want to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, although the House decided not to accept my previous amendment.

Order!

If this amendment is not acceptable I shall not move it.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that this amendment is out of order in any event because it is similar to the one that has just been negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 1. On page 2, in line 22, to omit “nine” and to substitute “ten”.

During the debate the hon. the Minister said that it was envisaged that members of the Coloured and Asian population groups may be appointed to the board. In my Second Reading speech I asked why Blacks should not also be appointed to the board. I asked why it should be limited to Whites and Coloureds only. After all, 70% of the people of South Africa are Blacks. Surely in the years to come the number of Black tourists is going to increase considerably. They are going to play a very important role in the tourist industry in South Africa. Rather than limit the number to nine and have problems I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he accepts my amendment that 10 members be appointed to the board. When he appoints one Coloured and one Asian he should also appoint one Black.

I have read the speeches made by hon. members of the CP during the second reading of this debate. It is so much nonsense to think that the C.P. appear to believe no Blacks live in South Africa and that Blacks will not be allowed to participate in the life of South Africa. I must say it appears to me that they are filibustering about nothing.

The next point I want to deal with is the question of the composition of the board itself. Here I want to recommend to the hon. the Minister that there are certain persons representing organizations who should be appointed to this board. Fedhasa should have at least one representative. Another representative should come from the S.A. Tour and Safari Organization, Satso. Asata, the Association of S.A. Travel Agents, should also be represented. In his concluding remarks the hon. the Minister spoke about caravans and referred to the large number of them in South Africa. I therefore want to suggest that also a member of the caravan organization be appointed to the board.

I want to make a recommendation to the hon. the Minister with regard to the publicity associations of South Africa. At present there is no organization whatsoever for the many publicity associations that exist in South Africa. If one wants tourism, particularly to the smaller towns in South Africa, I believe it is necessary that both a national and a regional association of publicity associations should be formed. All publicity associations fall under local authorities, and I therefore recommend to the hon. the Minister that when this new tourism board is formed, it should be instrumental in forming a national association of publicity associations so that one can have some voice from all the local authorities in South Africa. I also want to recommend that the airlines and shipping lines together should also have a representative on this board, and lastly that the tour guides should also have a representative. In addition to that there should be the Black, Coloured and Asian representatives. I hope that one of the appointments will also be the present Director of Tourism, who has played such a large part in drawing up this Bill and who has very wide experience in this field. It is also necessary, in view of the situation in South Africa, that the Department of Transport has a representative on this board.

Mr. Chairman, before we decided on the Bill as it stands we consulted representatives of the tour operators’ industry. The one point on which I think we all agree is that the board must be restricted in its size. It must not be too big. Consequently provision is made for the board to discharge some of its functions through committees, committees on which member of the board itself can serve and to which other persons also may be appointed. I take it therefore that the board will provide for the diversity by appointing different committees consistings of experts in each field. The Bill does, however, not have any racial restrictions. I pointed that out previously. There is no racial restriction. The Minister can appoint members from any race group. I would also like to direct the hon. member’s attention to the fact that the Minister must appoint nine members from the tourist trade as such, in other words people active in that field. Five of them will be appointed from a list compiled by organizations in the tourist industry, and this list can even include people of various population groups. The hon. member need therefore not appeal to me to increase the number of people on the board for this purpose. There is sufficient provision for all interested people to represent various spheres and population groups. I believe 13 is really more than one would like to see on such a board and therefore I can unfortunately not agree to the proposed amendment of the hon. member to increase the board by one.

Would you endeavour appointing at least one Black man as well?

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to say that there is no objection in principle to it, but I would not like to see the board representing people from different racial groups only because of that. I do not want to draw politics into it to that extent. Depending on the ability of people, and the interest they show and their activities I am prepared to seriously consider them for appointment regardless of their racial backgrounds.

Therefore you have no objection in principle to that?

I have no objection in principle.

Sir, I agree with the hon. the Minister but would like to make a suggestion. The Hotel Board has a very capable Black person as one of its members, somebody whom the hon. the Minister may consider appointing to this board.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to this clause as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 2. On page 2, in line 39, to omit “a specified period” and to substitute “30 days”.
2. 3. On page 4, in line 9, to omit “three” and to substitute “four”.

My first amendment stipulates a fixed period of 30 days, whereas reference is made in the clause to “a specified period”. That is far more specific. If it were inserted then everyone in the private sector would be able to arrange their affairs accordingly. I think a period of 30 days would be ample for everyone. Everyone would know that they would have to arrange their affairs within that period. If we retain the words “a specified period”, the hon. the Minister will always have to tell the people in question: It will have to be done within such and such a period. I think our legislation should be specific, and I think that that period must be spelt out.

As far as clause 3(2)(b) is concerned, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what Government department will be represented on this board. It is always difficult to know which will be the best person to appoint to such a board. What department will be represented on this board? The paragraph in question reads as follows—

Some of the departments will come up automatically, but I should like to know where the hon. the Minister is going to draw the line. We all know that the State departments have changed so considerably over the past number of months that no one is quite sure which department is which any more. Many of the functions of certain departments have been taken over by other departments. I should be obliged if the hon. the Minister could give us an indication of these departments.

Subsection (4) of this clause reads as follows—

The term of office of members of the South African Tourist Corporation is five years, but as far as the Hotels Act is concerned, the period of office of members of the Hotel Board is set at three years. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the position of the members of these two boards is going to be now, since their periods of office differ. I think that a period of four years would be a good average, and that is why I moved my second amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance the hon. member for Sunnyside referred to the period in which organizations are allowed to submit the list of names to the Minister. The hon. member proposed a period of 30 days as a more specific period. I admit that that could perhaps result in greater clarity, but due to the practical circumstances the Minister must be able to display greater flexibility. Organizations often indicate that they will only meet after a specific time and will not, therefore, be in a position to submit names to him within a specific period. The Minister must determine, in close co-operation with these organizations, when he wants that list of names back and when he will be in a position to decide on such proposals. I should like to accommodate the hon. member. I have no real objection to specify a period of 30 days, but it is sometimes necessary for the Minister to have more discretion and to make the period longer than 30 days, or even shorter, in some cases. It was in fact for that reason that I left it open, but if the hon. member were able to convince me that I should accept his proposal of 30 days, I would have been sympathetic. When I listen to the problems that are being or could be experienced with regard to a fixed period of 30 days, I must say that the hon. member has not sufficiently convinced me to drop the existing period, viz. a specified period, and accept his amendment in regard to a period of 30 days. I ask the hon. member that we leave it as it stands, unless he feels very strongly about it and can advance more cogent reasons. I shall listen to him again in this regard.

The hon. member asks what State departments will be represented. The board has not yet been appointed and we shall have to decide on the merits of the various Government departments. One can take it that the Department of Commerce and Industries will be involved because the board falls under the wing of the department. One can assume that there will probably be a representative of the S.A. Airways or of the Department of Transport. However, at this stage I do not wish to commit myself. I think that as soon as the board has to be appointed, one will have to arrange extensive consultations, because it would be very easy to nominate far more departments that ought really to be able to designate representatives.

As regards the period for which a member may serve on the board, three years has become the general custom. The hon. member referred to the fact that the Satour legislation provides that members may be appointed for periods from three to five years, whereas the legislation of the Hotel Board prescribes three years. One would probably be able to differ on this, but it is generally accepted nowadays that a period of three years is customary. In the light of the general custom, we decided that in this regard, too, it would be appropriate to specify three years. Of course, a member can always be re-appointed. After a period of three years it is also a good time to evaluate his contribution and decide whether he can make a contribution for a further period of three years.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister is of the opinion that 30 days is too long, I want to ask him whether he would consider specifying 21 days. In the light of the importance of the matter one may want to appoint the board sooner, and therefore I think that a period of 21 days ought to be considered instead of a period of 30 days. In terms of the Companies Act and so on, a period of 21 days is common.

In the Act relating to the Hotel Board, we find that section 6(3) provides that any person who has reached the age of 65 years may not be appointed or re-appointed as a member of the board for a longer period than one year. But our present Prime Minister is still carrying on, despite the fact that he has reached the age of 65 years. Dr. Malan was still in harness at the age of 80 years. I believe that the provision concerning 65 years should be revised. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would perhaps delete this provision.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the last remark of the hon. member first. I think that this is an interesting reference to the existing legislation relating to hotels. It is not at issue now, of course, but I accept the hon. member’s suggestion. When the legislation is consolidated, we shall certainly consider that provision because I agree with him that there are indeed cases where people who have reached the age of 65 years are still able to make a sound contribution. Of course, the legislation does not make it impossible for such people to be reappointed. They can, of course, be appointed to the Hotel Board as well, but for periods of one year.

I want to know from the hon. member whether, if we were to insert in the prescribed period “a reasonable period”, he would be satisfied. If we set it at 21 days, it aggravates the problem. One could then rather decide on 30 days. I have a problem, because what happens? We approach a few organizations, and they say: “Listen, it is difficult to consult all our members at this point, because our general meeting is only going to take place at some time in the future, viz. some time after that cut-off date; can we not be granted an extra week?” They may need two weeks. To achieve the greatest possible degree of consensus we want to have the necessary flexibility. But now we are being limited by a period of 21 or 30 days. I ask the hon. member that we leave it as it is. The whole idea with regard to the appointment of the board is to achieve the greatest possible degree of consensus. The Minister will not try to do anything suddenly in this regard, thereby, perhaps, incur the wrath of the tourism industry. Indeed, he is trying to appoint a board, in co-operation with bodies, which will be worthy of all.

Therefore, for that reason I do not wish to accept the hon. member’s amendment and I hope he will accept it in that spirit.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister tells me that he has certain problems, I understand that. However, this clause is the reason why the CP initially voted against the Bill. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to what he said in the course of his reply to the Second Reading debate. He said—

In this regard the hon. the Minister feels just as we do. Separate institutions for each population group means separate development, and that is what the CP advocates. It is the policy of the CP and it was the policy of the NP until last year, when it was drastically changed. I want to put it clearly to the hon. the Minister that we are voting against this clause because the proposed council will be mixed. We are opposed to that in principle. I accept that some of the other things I have proposed create problems for the hon. the Minister.

As far as subsection (4) is concerned, I should like to make one remark. The subsection reads—

When a member is appointed, will special provisions apply which will differ from the conditions that apply at present to members of the S.A. Tourist Corporation and the Hotel Board, or will more or less the same conditions apply? Are there other matters that will be taken into account?

No. The conditions will remain the same.

Mr. Chairman, I should not like to reply again to the argument which has become so hackneyed and which also came up during the discussion of the previous measure, viz. the appointment of members of other population groups to the S.A. Tourism Board. The problem with hon. members of the CP is that they are not capable of grasping that in South Africa there is also a considerable area of common interest. Therefore, in their politics, they try to flee from the reality of joint responsibility, and they over-emphasize and absolutize uniqueness. Quite simply, there are areas of common interest in South Africa that have to be taken into account. The problem with hon. members of the CP is that they are not capable of dealing with those communalities, and for that reason they resort to various forms of wishful thinking and occupy themselves with logical gymnastics that simply do not keep abreast with reality. They consistently fail to distinguish between co-ordination and integration. We have before us a Bill that makes provision for co-ordination and co-operation in the communal field of tourism, so that it can be dealt with properly. In his speech during the Second Reading debate the hon. member did say that it was for that reason that they were opposed to the Bill. However, I am surprised that they have not moved an amendment to limit the members appointed to the new board to the White population group alone.

However, all these arguments have been advanced repeatedly and I shall let these few remarks suffice.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Amendment 2 negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Amendment 3 negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

It is not clear to me what reasons there may be for the Minister to remove a member of the board from office. What reasons could there be? Why will the Minister be empowered to remove a member from office? Is the reason of a political nature, or what? I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is here, because last year we had the same thing. Just because I am a member of the CP I was immediately suspended from the control board of Acacia Park. [Interjections.] That is the kind of intimidation we get in this country.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

Is the hon. the Minister going to act for political reasons, or what will his reasons be if he wants to suspend a member of the board? It is important that we should know this. I trust the hon. the Minister and I know that he will not act recklessly, but I cannot say of all the Ministers that they will not drag politics into the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to give the hon. member for Sunnyside the assurance that I have consistently sought to keep politics out of this legislation and we shall uphold this principle as regards administration as well. It is certainly not the intention to disqualify members of the board due to their political convictions. What we have in mind here are the unforeseen circumstances that could arise and that one can never fully define in legislation. Let me mention one example. A person can be involved in an accident and sustain such severe injuries that he is not capable of continuing to function as a member of the board. There are various other possibilities that one cannot always foresee, in the event of which it may be necessary for the Minister to make use of these powers. I think that they will only be used in truly exceptional circumstances. As the clause reads, good reasons have to be furnished. Moreover, the Minister is always accountable in this Parliament for action of this nature. I just wish to point out that it is, of course, a recognized provision, and that there are various other councils and bodies to which a similar clause applies. For example, there are the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets Act, the Groot Constantia Estate Control Act, the Common Pasture Management Act, the Iscor act, the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act, and so on. Therefore this is not a new provision; it exists to enable the Minister to act in those exceptional instances. I stress that the Minister has to be able to act in “exceptional instances” when a person is no longer capable of duly meeting his obligations.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has just given the example of a person who is rendered incapable due to having been involved in an accident, but I want to point out to the Minister that in my opinion that is covered by clause 4(1)(d). Clause 4(4) reads as follows—

As far as I am concerned, the word “may” is not effective here. The meaning is not strong enough. I ask that the hon. the Minister consider replacing it by the word “shall”. If such a person is not appointed, that means that there is one member too few on the board. The hon. the Minister is responsible for the appointment of members to the board and accordingly I request him to consider replacing the word “may” by the word “shall”. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to consider this, I shall move an amendment to that effect.

Mr. Chairman, as far as his first argument is concerned, I just wish to point out to the hon. member for Sunnyside that clause 4(1)(d) does not refer to the discharge but to the appointment of a member of the board. The power of the Minister in terms of clause 4(3) relates to the discharge of a member from the board. Therefore this specific clause affords him no discretion.

If I ought to accommodate the hon. member for Sunnyside, since a provision relating to time has not been inserted in this clause, then I have no objection to accepting the replacement of the word “can” by the word “shall”. In terms of clause 4, the Minister has to appoint the members of the board. Therefore the legislation provides that the Minister must fill vacancies. The board consists of 13 members and the Minister has to appoint certain people as members. Therefore I believe that this is implicitly provided in the legislation and it would therefore only be superfluous to repeat it in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the explanation the hon. the Minister has just furnished, I shall not move the amendment I suggested earlier. Therefore I shall let what I said earlier, suffice, and I am also satisfied with the hon. the Minister’s decision that the wording will remain as it stands.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 1. On page 4, in lines 40 to 42, to omit and one as vice-chairman so to preside when the chairman is unable to do so”.
2. 2. On page 4, in line 43, to omit “both the chairman and the vice-chairman are” and to substitute “the chairman is”.

I should like to know why, in terms of clause 6(1), a vice-chairman now has to be appointed. In terms of clause 6(2) the board members elect a chairman if both the chairman and the vice-chairman are unable to preside at a meeting of the board. Consequently I think it is quite unnecessary to provide that a vice-chairman shall be designated, for if the chairman cannot be present the members of the board may in any case designate a person as chairman. I therefore feel that it is unnecessary to make provision for the appointment of a vice-chairman. That is why I am moving in my amendment that the provision in terms of which a vice-chairman is designated be deleted.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the positive attitude of the hon. member for Sunnyside. When he is of the opinion that it is not necessary for him to move his amendment, he does not do so. I therefore feel that when I have told him my reasons for our having to do things in the proposed manner in this connection, he will also be prepared to withdraw his amendment. The fact is simply that when a vice-chairman has been appointed, it is easier for the chairman, in cases where he will be absent, to transfer his obligations to the vice-chairman. This ensures a greater degree of continuity in the board.

If, the chairman should fall ill, for example, he is not able to nominate someone else to prepare or present the documents to the board. He has to wait until the meeting takes place and a chairman has been elected for that specific meeting. Therefore, in order to ensure continuity in practice and to facilitate the working of the board, the provision reads as it does in the Bill. There is no reason why we should necessarily designate a vice-chairman. However, the hon. member himself will know that it sometimes happens that a chairman is at short notice unable to attend a meeting and deems it necessary to inform someone or to give someone certain information which has to be conveyed to the meeting. We really feel that it would be of greater benefit to the board to designate a vice-chairman as well who can preside in the absence of the chairman. If the vice-chairman is not available, either the board will simply have to elect a chairman itself to preside over the meeting. I hope that as a result of this practical explanation the hon. member will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister has said that it is purely for practical purposes—it is our aim to make this Bill as practical as possible and I have also said from the outset that we have to consolidate these matters and strive to have good legislation—I ask for leave to withdraw my amendments.

Amendments, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 1. On page 6, in lines 8 and 9, to omit “, with the approval of the Minister,”.
2. 2. On page 6, in line 9, after “persons” to insert local or overseas”.

It is not clear to me why the Minister has to give his approval for members of the board to appoint a committee. In this case we can speak of the dead hand of the past presiding from the grave. I feel that if a board is appointed which can be considered to be entirely responsible and which does not consist of ignorant people but senior people, this should be left to them and the hon. the Minister should not be saddled with such a trifling matter as having to give his approval to the appointment of a committee to play a completely subservient role. I think it is unnecessary to burden the Ministry with unnecessary work and tasks. For that reason I feel that, irrespective of anything else, it is not necessary for the Minister to have to grant approval for this to be done.

My other amendment concerns the insertion of the words “local or overseas”. I think it would be possible in practice for Satour and our tourist industry to allow people from abroad to serve on such committees. I want to make provision for that possibility by the insertion of the words “local or overseas”. I think it is necessary for this provision to be as general as possible and for that reason I am asking the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, the reason for it being provided that members of committees may only be appointed with the approval of the Minister is simply because the State will still be largely responsible for the financing of the Tourism Board. It is the aim of the board, and its task to develop other sources of financing as well, but for some time to come the Government will probably have to contribute most of the board’s funds. For that reason it was deemed necessary for the Government to supervise the appointment of members of the committees because these committee members also share in the remuneration and other benefits board members enjoy.

I find it rather strange that hon. members of the CP are protesting on the one hand that the Minister has indicated that he may and will consider appointing members of other population groups to the board, while on the other hand they are advocating that the board should actually have total freedom to appoint anyone it wishes to its committees. I would have thought that hon. members of the CP would have felt very strongly that no members of committees should be appointed without the approval of the Minister.

We have more confidence in the committees than in the Minister.

For that reason I feel that it is correct for the State to take cognisance of which committees are appointed and who is serving on those committees in this respect as well.

The hon. member also requested that the words “local or overseas” be inserted so that members may be drawn from overseas countries or this country. I have no objection to the hon. member’s proposal. I think it is a good thing that, where necessary, the board will also to make use of experts, even from outside South Africa. However, it is not necessary to write this into the legislation. It is implicit that members may be appointed without restriction of membership. It is not only South African citizens or residents of South Africa who may be appointed. The board may therefore appoint people locally or overseas. It is therefore not necessary to insert those words in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, as far as my second amendment is concerned, I am satisfied now that the hon. the Minister has told me that it is implicit in the legislation. Nevertheless, I still want to refer to my first amendment. I cannot see why this should take place with the hon. the Minister’s approval. I have every confidence that if the right board is appointed, and if it is a White board, the board will do its duty properly. I believe the board will look after the interests of the various population groups. The independent Black States, as well as the Coloured State which is still going to be established, will manage their own affairs. The various Black States and the Coloured or Indian States will manage their own affairs. I do not believe that irresponsible people will be appointed. I am confident that the right board will be appointed.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider my first amendment. I shall then withdraw my second amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member that it is important to give the board the greatest possible degree of independence and autonomy. However, in view of the fact that the Government is linked financially to the board to such an extent for the performance of its duties and obligations, I feel that it remains necessary for the Minister to acquaint himself with the way in which the board manages its affairs and appoints its committees. This is a new field we are entering and I believe it is important that, particularly at the start, there will be the closest co-operation with the chairman and the other members of the board to give shape to a committee system which will contribute greatly to facilitating the functioning of the board. However, I feel it is important for the Minister to be involved in this so as to maintain the continuity of the past.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the statements made by the hon. the Minister as far as committees are concerned. They should not be restricted only to South Africans. The hon. the Minister is well aware, as everybody is aware, that particularly in the tourist industry a large number of non-South Africans is participate who have a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience of tourism. I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister is going to allow them to serve on these committees. That can only benefit South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has told us that he wants to gain a hold on the board owing to the fact that there will be many financial obligations resting on the State, etc. I am just afraid that this may have the same consequences as those which resulted when the hon. the Minister of National Education withheld money from another organization because it was opposed to the Government. Is Satour eventually going to experience the same thing if it does not do everything it is told to do? Will money not also be withheld from Satour?

Amendment 2, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 1 negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, there are certain things that happen in this country which defeat the object of both the Hotel Board and the South African Tourist Corporation. I want to bring these to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I want to refer particularly to one-star and two-star hotels, which should play a very great role in the future, particularly amongst those people who are not able to afford four-star and five-star hotel accommodation. We want to attract everybody to come to South Africa. We should try to adopt a system in South Africa whereby one-star and two-star hotels become hostelrys with mine host, like one finds all over Europe. Unfortunately one-star and two-star hotels are tied up to their liquor licences and seem to make their livelihood only out of the liquor they sell. I do not think that is the objective of the Hotel Board and I hope that when this new Tourism Board comes into being, that particular attention will be paid to one-star, two-star and possibly three-star hotels with the object of being able to get far more tourists to stay in them and to see that the accommodation and service that is provided for them, attracts tourism. I also believe that one of the things that the new organization must do is to provide special training courses for people who run one-star and two-star hotels. Most of them have not had the experience which the large five-star hotel groups have in training their people and the only organization that is available to provide training will be this Tourism Board.

There is another thing I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister. There are standards laid down by the International Hotel Association and I would like this new organization to start adopting the standards as laid down by the International Hotel Association in South Africa as well so that right throughout the world everybody will know what standard of service they can expect in South Africa.

The question of taxation allowances for hotels is very important indeed because I believe that if one wants to develop your industry, one must make greater allowances in your taxation proposals as far as one-star and two-star hotels are concerned. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he discusses with the hon. the Minister of Finance ways and means so that one-star and two-star hotels can get a greater tax allowance than what they have been getting up to now.

Finally, I want to say that there are certain groups which imperil tourism in South Africa by not providing travel agents with the opportunity of booking with them. I refer particularly to the Parks Board. The Parks Board gives no commission whatsoever to anybody who books with them. The Transvaal Provincial Council representative stated at a congress that his board was prepared to give a 10% allowance. That was a year ago. They still do not grant it. One cannot expect travel agents to send tourists to these places unless they get a commission. They are not in the business for nothing. There is a particular hotel group, the Rawdon group, which owns places where everybody wants to go, places such as Lanzerac and Matjiesfontein. But nobody is sent there by the travel agents. It is true that they get enough people, but the principle is wrong. They do not give any commission to travel agents. That also applies in particular to the Drakensberg resorts which are very good tourist resorts.

Finally, I hope the hon. the Minister will go into the question of providing finance for regional development of tourism. There must be some way in which either the Industrial Development Corporation or some other corporation can provide the necessary finance for hotels to develop, and this applies particularly to the one-star and two-star hotels. I hope he will ask the new Tourism Board to investigate this matter.

Mr. Chairman, as this clause deals with the function of the board, namely to promote and develop the tourist industry, I would like to return to a matter which I raised with the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate, namely provision for an annual tourism conference. I suggested that to him because I believe it could increase the number of tourists visiting South Africa, such as holidaymakers and it would hopefully also include businessmen. Particular emphasis should be placed, I think, on the aspect of congresses because congresses are big business. I believe that sufficient facilities do not exist in South Africa at the present time and I would express the hope that a conference of this nature would deal with this particular aspect. All those with a particular interest in tourism, such as travel agents; those interested in the hotel industry; safari agents, vehicle renting agents, tour-guide organizations; motoring associations and publicity associations should be invited to this conference. All those interested in tourism should be invited to this conference to promote tourism. The point is that all those who are interested should be invited to attend. It is hoped that the conference and those involved will develop, what I referred to in the Second Reading, “an aggressive marketing strategy”. It is also to be hoped that the net result of the conference would be to increase the number of tourists visiting South Africa. After all, I believe it is an easy task, because we have tourist attractions of a wide variety. The conference has merely to co-ordinate the many activities of the persons and organizations involved with tourism. While a central body such as the conference, could be charged with the duty of co-ordinating the activities of all the interests of tourism, local, regional bodies and authorities should be encouraged to develop their various facilities and attractions so as to make them sufficiently attractive to tourists, both local and overseas. I think of the goldmine museum in Johannesburg which is a recent development. That museum has been developed with the specific purpose of attracting tourists to Johannesburg and to the goldmine museum and to inform them of the development and activities of the goldmining industry. Another example is the restoration of Tulbagh after the earthquake and also Graaff-Reinet. These are all new and recent developments. One must not forget the existing attractions and one hopes that they will be publicized and developed as well. I want therefore to urge the hon. the Minister to give attention to the suggestion of an annual conference.

The clause also provides for the development and improvement of accommodation for travellers, and it is to be hoped that residential hotels will also come under the control of this board. Their activities can then be promoted and co-ordinated as are those of the licensed hotels and restaurants.

Mr. Chairman, section 8 of the South African Tourist Corporation Act reads as follows—

As far as the objects of the Hotel Board are concerned, section 3 of the Hotels Act provides the following—

1. (a) to foster the development and improvement of accommodation establishments with a view to achieving and maintaining the highest possible standards in the quality of the accommodation, meals and services provided by such establishments;
2. (b) to assist in achieving and maintaining the highest possible standards in the quality of meals and catering services provided by establishments other than accommodation establishments.

The problem we are experiencing in South Africa is the fact that hotels and meals are expensive. Here provision is being made for the fact that only the highest standards must be maintained. That is indeed the case. To tell the truth, in certain circumstances I think that our standards are too high. The prices attaching to those standards are too high, because the quality of the service furnished is not always what one wants it to be. We therefore find that the tourist has to incur extra, unnecessary costs for a service because of the fact that a hotel is a four-star or five-star hotel. He does not get five-star treatment or five-star service. I think we have probably all had that experience, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this matter could not be investigated. These provisions are now becoming part of this legislation, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure, in co-operation with all the bodies involved, that we give only the best possible service to our people and to tourists from abroad. We cannot furnish the best possible service by simply charging the higher prices that go with furnishing the required service. I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister would undertake to do something in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, it is true that the functions of the Hotel Board are being transferred to the new Tourism Board, in consequence of which it will be the task of the board to see to the accommodation aspect of the tourist industry as well as to the standards and other relevant aspects.

†The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the smaller hotels. I think that we are very sympathetically disposed towards the small hotelier, particularly in the rural areas where he serves the community not only by providing accommodation but also in many ways as a centre for the social life of that area. However, there are also those small hotels which provide really only a front for their liquor outlets. I appreciate the view of the hon. member that this is really not the right approach. They should not exist simply because of their liquor outlets but they should also provide a service that can stand on its own. It will certainly be our objective to try to achieve this. It is interesting to note that in the early sixties the Knobel Commission had a thorough look at the smaller hotel and the problems connected with smaller hotels. That commission made very sound recommendations. In the last number of years Fedhasa and the Hotel Board have directed their efforts towards the smaller hotelier and much has come about to advance the advice given and services rendered to these people. This is a valid point and I shall certainly pass it on to the new board and its chairman to take a particular and sympathetic look at the position of the small hotelier in our rural areas.

The hon. member also referred to the Parks Board. That board, however, does not fall under this department. I am sure the hon. member is aware of the position and I think he should raise this matter when the appropriate Vote comes up for discussion. What is true, however, is that over the whole field of tourism greater co-ordination has come about. In the course of my Second Reading speech I said that it was one of the objectives of the board to try to co-ordinate the various activities in the field of tourism. I think our national parks certainly fall into this category.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to the annual tourism conference. When we discussed the matter during the debate on my Vote, I indicated that his was a very positive suggestion. I shall pass it on to the new chairman and I am sure that the new board will give special attention to it. While I am dealing with this, I may add that I am anxious to appoint the board as soon as possible to get on with the job in an effort to promote tourism in this country.

The hon. member also referred to congresses. This is a very lucrative market internationally. Of course, one must be able to provide the required facilities. These facilities are, however, of a nature which we do not have in South Africa. I may point out that the Tourism Branch of the department has already given special attention to this aspect of tourism. They have a congress branch and they brought out a very, very interesting brochure a copy of which I shall make available to the hon. member. In the brochure all the facilities throughout South Africa are listed for the benefit of people who want to hold congresses. They also cater internationally and they have been reasonably successful especially if one takes note of the number of international congresses held in South Africa over the last couple of years.

*The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to the Hotel Board’s brief to see to standards as well. It is true that it is one of the principal objects of the Hotel Board. It may be that we in South Africa lay down excessively high standards in many spheres, and I want to agree with that, but that is the very reason for making provision for a grading from one star to five stars in the standards of the accommodation industry. Consequently it is the choice of the hotelier whether he actually wants to offer the services to give him a five-star rating, or whether he is satisfied with two or three-star rating.

Many tourists have discovered that excellent facilities are made available to tourists in South Africa in the two, three or four-star categories. However, it is also necessary to provide five-star hotels as they make provision for a specific segment of the market.

On the whole I believe that the broad basis for tourism being established within the new board will definitely benefit the hotel industry to a very large extent.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg North mentioned the question of residential hotels, or pensions, as they are called overseas. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say about bringing them also under the auspices of the new board.

Mr. Chairman, the problem of the accommodation industry, or the smaller private hotel, if you want to call it that, has been investigated from time to time, but it has been found that these places of accommodation have not been very successful in South Africa. Several efforts to co-ordinate them, to arrange for bookings through a central office, etc., have not been very successful up till now. They do not fall under the Hotel Board, but I will certainly ask them to investigate this matter again and to submit their findings to me. At this point in time I cannot, however, give the hon. member a definite reply as to whether it will be possible to bring them under the jurisdiction of the new board.

Mr. Chairman, to develop the idea of a national conference further, could we ask the hon. the Minister whether he would also recommend to the board once it is appointed to consider the possibility of a national conference of publicity associations. There are many publicity associations, both regional and municipal, throughout the country who operate on their own, sometimes conflicting each other’s efforts. If those efforts could be combined and co-ordinated, I believe that they would go a long way towards promoting tourism in the country. I ask the Minister to consider that as well.

Mr. Chairman, speaking of publicity associations, I do not think that the co-ordination of that group of people falls within the sphere of activity of the Tourism Board. However, I believe that there must be close liaison between tourist authorities and publicity agents. I believe that as in the past, the new board will certainly co-ordinate its efforts in such a way that the publicity agents will also be brought into it. I will pass on the hon. member’s suggestions to the chairman and the new board.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, the matters pertaining to clause 9 have already been set out in detail in two other Acts. There are, however, a few questions I should like to put to the hon. the Minister.

As far as the Hotel Board is concerned, it is specified that it can lend quite a large sum of money to the industry. It is even provided that a board such as the new board that is to be established can take over and run hotels. What does the hon. the Minister have in mind in this connection? Is it the intention to build more hotels and make more money available? We know that many hotels make more money from their liquor-sale outlets than from the accommodation they provide. This creates problems. The sale of liquor should actually be supplementary to hotel accommodation. I foresee that in the future we are going to encounter this problem. Whatever we do, it simply will not go away. Is it the intention to have this matter thoroughly investigated? I believe there is good reason to have this matter thoroughly investigated so that we can get a proper picture of the situation. If the department cannot do so now, will it be one of the functions to be entrusted to the new Tourism Board? As soon as the new board is appointed, it can investigate the profitability of the industry as a whole and give attention to the sale of liquor and the accommodation provided. Many hotels gear themselves to the sale of liquor and are not specifically worried about the provision of accommodation. It would be a good thing to have a look at that aspect. If the Tourism Board is going to own hotels in its own right, there could also be an investigation into whether this would not encroach upon the interests of the private sector.

Mr. Chairman, although the Hotels Act makes provision for the Hotel Board, with the concurrence of the Minister, to establish and run new hotels, the object was merely to make provision for exceptional circumstances, e.g. when the private sector is not able to erect a hotel or where specific problems exist. It is not the object of the Hotel Board to erect and run hotels. The Hotel Board’s intention is to establish a climate in which the private sector itself runs the accommodation industry. The hon. member may therefore rest assured that the Tourism Board is not, by way of its offshoot, the Hotel Board, going to enter that industry, in any case not in any manner that would be in competition with the private sector.

The hon. member referred to hotels which relied greatly on their liquor sales. That is particularly true in the case of the smaller hotels, the small rural hotels. I can, however, also draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that there are many hotels in South Africa that do not even make any use of their off-sales facilities. There are actually four-star and five-star hotels that do not even have any off-sales facilities because they make a good living solely from their accommodation and other services. The matter has repeatedly been discussed, having received attention on various occasions. Where there are insufficient numbers of people, or only a small trickle of visitors, hotels find it difficult to make ends meet solely on the basis of their accommodation and meals. It is true that this does create problems, to a certain extent, but I do not know whether any clear-cut solution can really be found for this problem.

I think that I have replied to all the hon. member’s questions as far as that is concerned.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, in regard to clause 11 I have a problem with the two different bodies involved, with the question of salaries and actually with the Tourist Corporation too. What is going to happen if the salary scales of these three bodies are not at all comparable? What is going to happen if the conditions and service conditions attached to post A in the corporation, for example, are totally different to those applicable to hotels? This also applies to the Public Service. I forsee problems in that connection. It is true that the Minister can use his discretion, and as I see it, the Minister has permission to make a final decision on that matter. During the discussion of the Second Reading the hon. the Minister gave us the assurance that Public Servants would not be adversely affected. I am very grateful for that. There is still, however, the problem of these salaries. I know that it may perhaps be difficult for the hon. the Minister to answer the question now, but I would nevertheless like to ask for his opinion as far as that is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the establishment is concerned clause 10 provides for the board to draw up a blueprint indicating the posts to be created with the concurrence of the Minister, with the salaries, allowances, conditions of service, etc., to be determined with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. In other words, the new board that will come into being will draw up a blueprint for uniform salary scales for the establishment. During the discussion at Second Reading I gave the hon. member the assurance, as embodied in the legislation too, that no one would be worse off, that the present positions of all those concerned would actually be safeguarded and that members of the Hotel Board, of the South African Tourist Corporation or the Tourism Branch of the department would only benefit from the new scales. A uniform structure is created by joining together the three structures in such a way that it is actually beneficial to all the employees concerned.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 1. On page 8, in lines 43 and 44, to omit “and the Hotels Act, 1965” and to substitute:
   the Hotels Act, 1965, and the Tour Guides Act, 1978
2. 2. On page 8, in line 45, to omit “and Schedule 2” and to substitute:
   , Schedule 2 and Schedule 3

Amendment No. 1 is merely intended to make provision for having the Tour Guides Act transferred within the scope of the new board as well. That was unfortunately an oversight. Here only the functions of the other three bodies are being transferred to the new Tourism Board. After some consideration, it has also become apparent that this is the proper body to assume responsibility for the administration of the Tour Guides Act, and therefore in clause 15 and in schedule 3 I am also making provision for transferring this responsibility to the new board.

Mr. Chairman, during Second Reading I also expressed my pleasure at the fact that the hon. the Minister included tour guides in this particular clause. I should, however, like to discuss some of the problems that do arise in this respect. Firstly there is the question of the qualifications of tour guides. We have a paucity of tour guides in South Africa. When I talk about a tour guide I refer to someone who really knows what he is talking about. There is only one course given for tour guides in the whole of South Africa, and that is at the Pretoria Technikon. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the standard of this qualification should be made higher. I believe an approach should be made to Unisa with a view to the introduction of a diploma course in tourism, and for tour guides in particular. Unisa is a correspondence university, and that means that everybody in South Africa will be able to enter for such a course. Once a candidate has passed the written examination he can appear before the Registrar of Tour Guides for an oral examination in order to establish whether he is suitable for the job or not. I believe it is absolutely essential and in the interests of South Africa that properly qualified tour guides should be appointed and that the present system of a summary investigation into the suitability of a candidate be abandoned.

In addition, I believe there should be tour guides specifically trained to operate in certain areas in South Africa. I hope the Registrar will bear that in mind as well. Furthermore the S.A. Tourism Board should appoint a qualified person who will be responsible for tour guides. Whoever is appointed should be a highly qualified person, someone who really understands tourism and who really knows how a tour guide should put things across to tourists.

Finally I should like to refer to a very big problem. That is the question of language. Whichever language tourists prefer should be the language used by the particular tour guide. I believe that an effort is being made to make sure that every tour guide is fully bilingual. I do not think this is quite possible in the case of tour guides. A specific tour guide might be able to speak English, and might simultaneously be a very good tour guide because of his knowledge of, for example, Spanish or French. It is more important for tour guides to be able to speak a foreign language when dealing with tourists than merely to be able to speak English.

You have no regard for Afrikaans any longer.

And Afrikaans for that matter. A man should be able to speak either English or Afrikaans. Both are official languages in South Africa. He must, however, have a knowledge of Afrikaans. It is, however, not necessary that he should be able to conduct tours in Afrikaans. That is the point I am trying to put across. There must be tour guides who are fluent in Afrikaans.

I should also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that tour guides wear certain specific insignia, as is the case in overseas countries, denoting the fact that they are official tour guides. Such insignia could also indicate what languages a particular tour guide can speak, whether it be English, Afrikaans, French, German or whatever other language. That will enable people to know what languages particular tour guides can speak. It often happens, for example in Europe, that when one goes on a tour one finds that a tour guide can speak four or five languages, which means that only one tour guide is needed to conduct a particular tour. I sincerely hope the question of language will not be a stumbling block when it comes to the appointment of tour guides.

Mr. Chairman, we support the amendments moved by the hon. the Minister, but I nevertheless do just want to refer again to what the hon. member for Boksburg said earlier in regard to this specific provision. I should like to test the hon. member’s integrity against my own in order to determine whether we are both on the same wavelength. The hon. member for Boksburg asked whether I agreed with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when he said that a body should come into being to ensure that tour guides were qualified and had to write examinations. The hon. member for Boksburg contended that in his opinion I was too scared to give an answer on this.

I do, however, hope the hon. member for Boksburg is now going to indicate whether he agrees with this. We support the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. As far as we are concerned, we can only obtain the best system by training tour guides. I myself have been overseas. I think the hon. member for Boksburg has also been overseas. I hope that he is also going to take part in this discussion and that he will not be scared to say clearly where he stands in regard to this matter. Overseas I have found it a real pleasure and privilege to be accompanied by a tour guide who was properly trained. In that way the tourist gains tremendous knowledge. I am very glad the hon. member raised the matter, that the hon. the Minister is coming to light with this proposal and that this will be implemented in South Africa in the future. I think that in the past this has been one of our shortcomings in South Africa. We are a young country, the industry is therefore not that old yet and there were consequently not the necessary facilities. I say thank you very much for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have not prepared myself to discuss tour guides this afternoon; so I am not in a position to provide all the answers. As regards the training, however, it is a question of demand and supply. As I told the hon. member in a previous discussion, up to now very few people have shown an interest in following such a course. As a result, it is difficult to convince any institutions that they should provide for the training of tour guides. It is really a profession in its infancy. I think we all look forward to the time when we will have professional and excellent tour guides in this country as well. It is not really correct to compare the position in South Africa with that in Europe and elsewhere.

Why not?

Because of the numbers of people—that is the plain and simple answer. In Europe professional tour guides can certainly make a good living. They can sell their services to millions of tourists, whereas we have a small tourist industry. People who come to this country spread out over the wide area South Africa covers. It is, however, possible for a tour guide to qualify for a particular area. Such an examination or qualification need not be applicable to the whole of South Africa, entitling one to be a tour guide anywhere in this country. One can become a tour guide for a specific area or areas.

There is also the danger that one can set one standards so high that one will not be able to get tour guides. In some respects, therefore, it is better to start by building up the profession rather than by setting standards which will exclude too many people to begin with. Therefore the standards depend on the needs of the industry at a particular time.

*The hon. member for Sunnyside also pointed out that it is a young industry and that we have only recently begun with examinations. There are hardly 200 qualified tour guides. We are all eager to have the industry grow. I agree that it is a profession that must get the necessary support and assistance in order to grow. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout about that, but we must not be so idealistic that we set such high standards for this training that people eventually do not make themselves available. It is a young industry, there is interest in it and progress is being made. I also believe that the examinations are, to a large extent, going to contribute to placing the profession on a sound footing. As far as specific standards are concerned, that is an issue we can always debate again.

†I undertake to furnish the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with details concerning the standards to be met to become a tour guide. If there are any suggestions he would like to make regarding standards, he can certainly write to me in that regard and I will then attend to that.

He will probably apply.

That could be.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1:

Mr. Chairman, this schedule provides for residents of South Africa to be encouraged to travel within the country, and I merely want to ask the hon. the Minister to bring to the attention of the board that they should look at the regulations which provide for accommodation and refreshments for people travelling in South Africa, particularly in respect of areas which are visited by a great number of people during holidays. One finds that regulations that obtain during the year do not strain facilities at all whereas during holidays there is a great rush of people to popular spots and refreshment facilities are insufficient to cope with demands. I think of the instance which was brought to my attention, namely the restaurant at Storms River mouth where apparently they serve meals and refreshments between 12.30 and 2 o’clock only each day. During the Christmas period there is a great rush. I know a family who visited the place and only gained access to the restaurant shortly after 2 o’clock and who were then denied refreshments. That was due purely to an inflexible adherence to the regulations and times. I think the hon. the Minister should ask the board to have a look at that aspect to make it a little bit more flexible.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Clause 10 of the Bill provides for staff salaries and conditions of service. I think sections 14 and 15 of the South African Tourist Corporation Act of 1947 should also be deleted. Those sections are actually redundant.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Johannesburg North refers to refreshments, I take it he actually refers to refreshments of an alcoholic nature. I see the hon. member nods his head. That is therefore the case. This does not fall under either the Hotel Board or the Tourist Corporation, but under the Liquor Board. Hotels or restaurants can apply to the Liquor Board for a change in business hours. It is therefore possible to be flexible. It is possible to change and adjust times but they should apply to the Liquor Board. As far as other trading hours are concerned, it does not fall under either the central Government or these institutions, but under the local authority concerned. Local authorities decide on trading times for restaurants, cafés, etc.

*The hon. member for Sunnyside points out that sections 14 and 15 can be deleted. In a certain sense that is correct because they relate to the compensation of the employees of the South African Tourist Corporation. With the establishment of the South African Tourism Board a new pattern of salaries is to be introduced and sections 14 and 15 will no longer be applicable. It has, however, been decided to retain these two sections to make it possible to bridge the gap between the day on which the legislation is passed and the day on which the new pattern of salaries is accepted by the relevant Ministers and the Government. In simple terms, if we were to delete these two sections, as the hon. member has proposed, it would mean that on the day on which the State President signed the law, there would be uncertainty about the position of employees of the South African Tourist Corporation because they would have no legal assurance of their position as members of that body. By that time the South African Tourism Board would not yet have succeeded in drawing up the new schedules, submitting them to the Minister and having them approved. This is therefore merely being done to bridge the gap between the existing situation and the new situation. I therefore wish to point out to the hon. member that it is necessary to retain sections 14 and 15. The same applies to the next schedule.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has now indicated to us why these two sections cannot be deleted. He pointed out that this was so for practical reasons. I accept it as such and therefore withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

New Schedule (to follow Schedule 2):

Mr. Chairman, I move that the following be a New Schedule to follow Schedule 2:

Schedule 3

Extent of amendment of the Tour Guides Act, 1978 (Act No. 29 of 1978)

1. (a) The amendment of section 1—
   1. (i) by the substitution for the definition of “Minister” of the following definition:
      “‘Minister’ means the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism;”;
   2. (ii) by the substitution for the definition of “registrar” of the following definition:
      “‘registrar’ means the officer designated in terms of section 2;”;
2. (b) the substitution for section 2 of the following section:
   “Designation of Registrar.
   2. The Minister shall designate an officer of the South African Tourism Board established by section 2 of the South African Tourism Board Act, 1983, as Registrar of Tour Guides who shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed upon the Registrar in terms of this Act.;
3. (c) the substitution for paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 7 of the following paragraph:
   1. “(b) exhibit such certificate of registration on demand to any officer or employee authorized under section 8.”; and
4. (d) the substitution for section 8 of the following section:
   “Authorized officers and employees.
   8. The [Secretary for Tourism] South African Tourism Board instituted in terms of section 2 of the South African Tourism Board Act, 1983, may in writing authorize any officer or employee in its service [of the Department of Tourism] to demand from any person who acts as a tour guide, that he exhibit to such officer or employee the certificate of registration issued to him in terms of section 7.”.

As I have indicated, the proposed schedule 3 merely aims at making provision for the Tour Guides Act.

New Schedule agreed to.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the Title I want to say, on behalf of the CP, that if there is one thing we would like to see in South Africa, it is a good, prosperous and large tourist industry. It is a fact that this industry could earn South Africa a great deal of money if we could get overseas tourists to come to this country. One of the things that I think the Tourism Board should pay attention to is doing much more than we have perhaps been doing in the past. Not that we have not been doing enough, but as the hon. the Minister himself said during the Second Reading debate, one can always do even more. The Tourism Board is not there merely to earn money for South Africa; it is also there to draw people to South Africa from overseas, people who come to have a look at one’s country and its people, who get to know the various communities, people and population groups, can see each population group’s individual culture, etc., and can then become propagandists for South Africa overseas.

There is, however, another aspect we must have a look at, and that is our local tourism. The hon. the Minister referred to that a short while ago. As far as hotels and so on are concerned, I think the time has come for us perhaps to have a look at the possibility of creating more, better and cheaper facilities within the reach of those who are less affluent. If it were not for caravans—the other day the hon. the Minister pointed out how much we have in that regard—many of our people would not be able to travel round in this country. We say thank you very much for that. We wish this board everything of the best.

Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, earlier on I said that I wanted to refer to a few hon. members who had become very personal during the discussion of the Bill. I think that when one is not, in point of fact, able to make a speech or to make a contribution, one becomes insulting, as was the case with the hon. member for Boksburg and the hon. member for Caledon. I think that was very uncalled for. This afternoon I waited for those hon. members to withdraw their words and apologize, because they are not an asset to South Africa’s tourist industry. People in the gallery sit listening to what we are discussing. I had guests here. They must now listen to an hon. member of this House who, though he can make a positive, good speech about tourism, says things which could have been left unsaid. I think that we have had a fairly long discussion here this afternoon. I expected as much from those hon. members. I hope that will now be a lesson to them. If they do not have any regard for their own good name in the House, let them at least, for the sake of the House and the good name of South Africa, adopt a positive attitude in future. If hon. members want to hold private discussions with someone, let them do so, but they must not link this up to something as fine as South Africa’s tourist industry. With those few words I say thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for the opportunity to round this legislation off and close the discussion on it. I have no doubt that the establishment of the new Tourism Board is going to give great impetus to tourism in South Africa. It offers the private and public sectors an opportunity to work together and, as I have already pointed out in my Second Reading speech, opens up new possibilities for tourism in South Africa. The generation of new funds is only one aspect the new board will be able to look after.

The fact that the legislation has reached the Third Reading stage, and will be rounded off this afternoon, places us in a position to create greater certainty within the industry and, since the announcement was made that a new board was going to be established, give employees an assurance about their position.

I thank hon. members for their contributions during this debate and express the hope that the new board will not fall short of expectations.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, in his Second Reading speech on this Bill, which the hon. the Minister delivered just before the House suspended proceedings at the end of June, he informed us that this Bill covered a variety of subjects that fall within the sphere of his department. In effect, what he has given us is a sort of General Law Amendment Bill. These subjects include amendments to the Small Business Development Act, the Sorghum Beer Act and the Black Local Authorities Act, among others. The clauses relevant to these particular Acts are not contentious and therefore we have no objections to them. We have no objection either to clause 6 which brings about a change in the nomenclature as far as the Black States are concerned. Clause 5 effects an improvement in so far as it removes restrictions upon people attending sports meetings in areas where formerly they needed permits to do so. My colleagues, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will be discussing this clause at the Committee Stage and so I do not intend to discuss it now.

This, of course, brings me to the clauses in this Bill to which we do object. The first of these is clause 4 that amends the Black Urban Areas Act. The other clauses to which we object are clauses 16, 17, 18 and 19 that deal with the excision of the district of Moutse from Lebowa and its incorporation in kwaNdebele. I want to tell the hon. the Minister at once that it is because of these clauses that we on these benches will be opposing the Second Reading of this Bill.

I want to being with clause 4 which to my mind is a very important clause and which emanates from the Rikhoto judment in May of this year. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 30 June 1983, col. 10731)—

Let me briefly recap what the Rikhoto decision in fact was. In May this year the Appeal Court upheld a finding which was given in August 1981 in the Rand Supreme Court, that a contract worker who had completed 10 successive years of his contract could obtain section 10(1)(b) rights in terms of the Black (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. That meant that they obtained the right of permanent residence in the prescribed area. Section 10(1)(b) status entitles a man to remain in the urban area without having to return to the homeland every year and then go through all the necessary procedures through the local labour bureau in the rural area and also through the labour bureau in the urban area in order either to renew his contract, if he is on a call-in card, or to attest a new contract. It entitles him to change his job in the urban area and it should entitle him to take a job in another urban area as well if there is accommodation in that other area for him.

If there is.

Yes, if there is any, and that is always the problem because of the Government’s policy of not providing housing. [Interjections.] During all the years in which the Blacks were regarded only as temporary sojourners, nobody built houses in the urban areas.

Most important of all, section 10(1)(b) status enables a man to have his wife, unmarried daughter, and son under the age of 18 live with him in the urban area. By the way at this juncture I want to point out that the famous comma is once again missing. I presume it is simply a printing error, but it certainly changes the whole import of section 10(1)(c). Will the hon. the Minister tell me right away whether I shall have to revert to the whole business of arguing the importance of the comma after “unmarried daughter” because if the comma is not there, it means that the unmarried daughter has to be under the age of 18 like the son? If the comma is there, it means that the unmarried daughter may be an old spinster aged 55. Does the hon. the Minister intend amending that or must I move an amendment during the Committee Stage? The hon. the Minister may remember that I had a fierce argument with him in 1979 and eventually, because I was able to quote Dr. Verwoerd as having introduced this section originally, in 1952, I think it was, the hon. the Minister agreed to reinsert the comma.

We should make no mistake about it, the main effect of the Rikhoto judgment concerns the right of a contract worker to qualify for section 10(1)(b) rights that allow him thereafter to have his family with him under section 10(1)(c) of the Black (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act.

In a strictly legalistic sense, the amendment which is being introduced by clause 4 does not directly touch the judgment handed down by Mr. Justice Van Heerden and his brothers on the Bench in Bloemfontein in May. That I grant the hon. the Minister, but he must grant me that undoubtedly, indirectly and seriously, through the new conditions which are now going to be attached to section 10(1)(c) the Bill circumscribes the major effect of the Rikhoto judgment by limiting the right of access to town of the contract worker’s family, because now there has also to be approved accommodation. The man must have either a site permit to erect a dwelling, a residential permit for renting an Administration Board dwelling or a lodger’s permit as a whole—in other words apparently he has to have the whole house allocated to him; he cannot just have half of the house, or a leasehold right in respect of a site on which a dwelling has been erected.

All of this makes it extremely difficult for the contract workers to enable their families to take advantage of the rights acquired under the Rikhoto judgment, though the judgment itself is not affected. I want to be quite explicit. Whatever the hon. the Minister has said in the House and in several press statements to reassure anxious employers who want to stabilize labour, and overseas critics who back constructive engagement, that he has accepted the Appeal Court decision, clause 4 will quite obviously have a highly restrictive effect on the use that Blacks who qualify in terms of the Rikhoto judgment can make of their section 10(1)(b) rights. That there is no available housing or lodgings in any urban area for Blacks is common knowledge. It is all choc-a-bloc. There are long waiting lists in every single urban area throughout the country. There is no doubt about it. The hostels are full and the lodgings are full. This is due to the fact that for many years there was no building of family houses, or very little building of family houses, in the urban areas.

In order to make use of the Rikhoto judgment, Blacks are going to have to rely on the decision of officials to make accommodation available. Section 10(1)(b) does not give Blacks—this is very important—a legal right to demand accommodation. Although some lucky workers may have employers who will help them to cope with the difficulties and with officialdom to obtain accommodation or to build a house of some kind, for the rest, there is no doubt that Catch 22 as we know it has absolutely nothing on the obstacles encountered by Blacks to establish rights in the urban areas.

The Rikhoto case is one of a series of cases which have been fought over the years by public-spirited people, either through the Advice Office of the Black Sash or through the Legal Resources Centre and sometimes by individuals to try to help Blacks in this regard. As we all know, from 1968 the curtain came down. The regulation was passed which did not allow any Blacks to enter the urban except as contract workers. That meant that the effort was being made to freeze the Black urban population at its existing size, plus the natural increase. That has been the policy since 1968. It is ironical that but for the Rikhoto judgment, the attaining of section 10(1)(b) rights by Blacks would have fallen away because the 15-year period would have been over in 1983 while, of course, the 10 year period was over in 1978. So apart from women and children who are busy acquiring their rights to be section 10(1)(b) persons, this would have fallen away. But Rikhoto has intervened and now the hon. the Minister has had to do something about it.

There has been the Komani case, the Booi case, the Matheya case and the Yapi case, to mention only a few cases, each one fought through the courts at great expense to win a Black man the lementary right of living with his wife and children in an urban area, unless he happened to be born in that area or had already acquired section 10(1)(b) rights, and this happens in a country whose new constitution states that it is dedicated to upholding Christian values and civilized norms. We have to fight every case through the courts to enable a man who is working in the city to obtain the right to have his family with him! All too often victory in the courts has been deliberately countered by an obstructive bureaucracy, almost to the extent in some instances of civil disobedience. Here I quote the Komani case where it took months and months after the judgment was handed down, two more cases heard in the court and a severe reprimand by a judge, before officialdom started to implement the Komani judgment. I am informed that delaying tactics are now being employed as far as Rikhoto is concerned.

I read a report in The Cape Times where the chairman of WRAB stated that some 1 355 workers’ rights in terms of Rikhoto have been granted. That sounds quite good, but I am informed that here in Cape Town nothing like that is happening at all. People are being turned away and I am told that this is happening in Johannesburg too despite the fact that WRAB says that it is granting 130 applications a day. People are being turned away and told to come back time and time again. Their employers are being asked to supply details that are readily available on the card index files of the administration board records. They are being sent back over and over again to get employers to fill in forms. I am told that the boards are applying criteria which in fact the court did not discuss at all when it made its decision. For instance, I am told that paid leave has now got to be attested. It has to be attested not only that the man went home on leave but that he was on paid leave and therefore was still in the employ of the employer. Section 10(1)(b) says nothing about leave or paid leave. Some of the boards are following the Minister’s statement which he made to the Rand Daily Mail on 1 July this year with regard to a man with 15 years’ continuous employment, which is the other part of section 10(1)(b). The first part is 10 years’ employment with one employer and the second part is 15 years’ continuous employment in a prescribed area. Other administration boards have refused to accept this and they have in fact referred the matter to Pretoria. I do not know what Pretoria has got to do with it. This is a court decision and the hon. the Minister has apparently given his view. The hon. the Minister said in his first flush of annoyance when the Rikhoto judgment was publicized that the Rikhoto judgment went against the correct interpretation of the Act. I hope the hon. the Minister remembers making that statement.

That is how it was interpreted.

No, that is not true. It has nothing to do with the interpretation of the Court.

Of course, yes, and more.

Yes, but it was not the court’s interpretation of the Act. It is the official attitude towards the Act. That is the point. It went against the official attitude over the Act. I must tell the hon. the Minister that his department is notorious for passing regulations that turn out to be ultra vires in terms of the law. They pass regulations in order to make it easier for them to interpret the law as they wish to interpret it, and then those regulations are declared ultra vires. For example, there was the Komani case. And right now regulations are being passed making it necessary for a man to have a permit to have anybody else in this house for more than three days, otherwise not only is the lodger illegal but also the tenant, if he allows somebody to stay in his house. I hope that the hon. the Minister will realize that people are watching him and his department very carefully.

I also hope the hon. the Minister will use this opportunity, when he replies to this debate, to clear up some of the chaos and confusion that exists. First of all, does he hold to the view that the 15 years’ continuous employment also qualifies a man?

I have already made a statement on this issue.

All right, make another one.

I shall make it clear.

Please make it clear in Hansard because newspaper statements…

I will. That is a promise. [Interjections.]

I now feel very uneasy about this. The hon. the Minister must not make a promise; he must just say what his ruling is. Also will the hon. the Minister not promise, but simply tell us, what he believes is the situation regarding the rights of contract workers who are now citizens of independent homelands?

I shall also do that.

The hon. the Minister must tell me that too because in Durban they are apparently saying that a worker must have acquired his qualification before independence; in other words, for example, a worker must have had 10 years’ employment before 1976, in the case of a man from Transkei for example.

I have undertaken to clear up any misunderstanding and I shall do it.

I am so pleased to hear that because in Johannesburg I understand that they are referring such Blacks to Pretoria and I have always wanted to know just what that means. Where does this thing go when it just goes to Pretoria? Will the hon. the Minister also record for Hansard and for the benefit of ourselves that there is no intention of making any retrospective amendment that will affect the Rikhoto judgment? I know the hon. the Minister has said that already to the newspapers but we should like it on record. Will the hon. the Minister also tell us that he has no intention of introducing any amendment that will be blocking in the future, regarding the acquisition by workers of section 10(1)(b) rights? In other words, people who are in the process of qualifying must not be stopped by any legislation or regulation from acquiring those rights. That is very important.

Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for this hon. Minister, believe it or not.

Why? [Interjections.]

I do indeed have some sympathy for the hon. the Minister, Mr. Speaker.

Thank heavens for small mercies.

Yes. [Interjections.] I must admit it is somewhat different from the last time when I tried to take the hon. the Minister’s salary away from him. I must admit that I have mellowed in the ensuing weeks. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I must point out to the hon. the Minister that I understand he is under considerable pressure from the super-verkramptes who still sit in his caucus and who really belong with the CP, people who are very worried about the results of any change in the system which might make it easier for Blacks to come and live permanently in the cities. They are worried about the possible reaction from the CP. I know therefore that the hon. the Minister is under pressure to find some means, more directly than he is trying to create here, to circumvent the Rikhoto judgment. The campaign has certainly been aided from some quarters of the NP Press, where people still talk about the “Swart stroom”, and about 1,5 million people rushing into the cities in order to take advantage of the Rikhoto judgment. It is all a lot of nonsense, of course. Nothing like that is going to happen. A lot of people who want to come in, are in the cities already. A lot of people do not want to come in, while many men do not wish to bring their wives into the cities, for various reasons. There are also bachelors among those people, believe it or not, who come into our cities. The hon. the Minister must not allow himself to be stampeded by all this.

Against this, of course, he has the pressure from the other side; not only the pressure from hon. members of the PFP, but from major industrial and commercial concerns, who say they want to stabilize the labour situation and that they welcome the Rikhoto decision. I know the Urban Foundation feels this way about the matter, and there are certainly also many trade unions which are on record as saying that they welcome the Rikhoto judgment. And then, too, the hon. the Minister must have received warnings about unrest that would follow if any steps were indeed taken, any direct steps to circumvent the Rikhoto judgement.

Finally, there is of course the pressure from overseas, pressure from those countries who have taken part in “constructive engagement” and who clearly want to produce something in order to show that that constructive engagement policy is having an effect. The hon. the Minister, by way of clause 4 of this Bill, is obviously trying to satisfy all these factions. In other words, the Rikhoto judgment is not directly nullified, and to that extent he has kept a promise, because it is a promise he made when the Appeal Court delivered judgment in that case. Clause 4, however, imposes conditions the court did not lay down and which did not form part of section 10(1)(c), which is the significant consequence of obtaining section 10(1)(b) rights. That is why we contend that clause 4 of this Bill indeed circumvents the Rikhoto decision, be it directly or indirectly. It is also an extension of a totally discriminatory law which applies only to Blacks. That is the point, Mr. Speaker. These laws apply only to Blacks, and therefore they are racially discriminatory. They do not apply to Whites.

Can you, Mr. Speaker, imagine the furore if people had tried to stop Whites from moving into the towns, particularly in times of agricultural depression? This legislation also does not apply to Coloured people or Indians, only to Blacks. It is therefore totally discriminatory. It is also of course a re-enactment of a law which we dislike intensely, and which we have said we would repeal. That is the pass laws, which limit the mobility of Black people, and which are also totally discriminatory and apply only to Black people, and which have caused untold misery in South Africa since their inception. That was even before the time of the NP Government.

Therefore, on those grounds, we must reject this particular Bill. There is also another reason for our rejection of this Bill, a reason which will be gone into in much more detail later by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. That is a group of clauses—from clause 16 to clause 19—affecting the consolidation proposals as far as kwaNdebele and Lebowa are concerned. I do not want to go into this in any detail. I do, however, know a little about the matter because I have received two deputations from kwaNdebele over the past two or three years. They were very worried about this. There was all the stuff the hon. the Minister talked about in his speech, of “the southern Ndebele being denied the fulfilment of their national aspirations because there were enemies of the Republic of South Africa who loudly proclaimed that a policy which sought to unite those who belonged together was wrong”. That is what is what he said in his Second Reading speech. What nonsense that is!

It is not nonsense.

These people are not Ndebele. They consider themselves as belonging in Lebowa and that is where they want to stay.

Of peoples you understand sweet Fanny Adams. [Interjections.]

Well, I know what these people told me. Two of them were actually members of the Legislative Assembly of Lebowa. They do not wish to be excised from Lebowa. They say they belong in Lebowa. From what I have read, Chief Phatudi has been having conversations with the Prime Minister about this. Since we do not know what happened at this meeting, perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us. Perhaps he has changed his mind. Otherwise, let me tell him, we are going to have more Ingwavuma nonsense. These people do not want to go to kwaNdebele not only because they do not believe they belong there, but also because kwaNdebele has opted for independence and they do not want to belong to an independent kwaNdebele. My information is that it has the sort of chief the unfortunate Ciskei has. He also wants a casino and in no time he will be buying himself a jet aeroplane costing R2 million while his people are starving. Anyway, whatever the reason, they do not want to go from Lebowa to kwaNdebele. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us what the intentions are in this regard, because my information directly from the Moutse people is that they do not want this consolidation deal which the hon. the Minister and the hon. Commissioner Van der Walt have been busy cooking up between them.

For all the reasons I have mentioned, we in these benches will oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton is the most attractive member in the House, and blue certainly suits her, but when it comes to her arguments, I was amazed to find that I could really not see any logic in them. I shall give an example. The hon. member said that all the cities in White South Africa are chock-a-block and there is little family housing available.

Right.

She first said that. Then she said nobody had a legal right to demand accommodation. Where must the accommodation come from?—I use her own logic. She said no housing was available. What must one then do?

Build some houses.

I do not understand the logic of her arguments when on the one hand she demands housing and on the other hand she says that there is no housing available since everything is chock-a-block.

Then she quoted extensively from certain judgments and stated categorically that in the judgment in the Rikhoto case there was no mention made of the necessity for paid leave to be taken. That is not quite true. I want to quote from the judgment for the hon. member’s benefit. [Interjections.]

*It was written in Afrikaans and I quote as follows—

This was such an important facet that the Appeal Court deemed it necessary to refer specifically to it. I now wish to say to the hon. member that it does not seem to me as if her argument is based on the court judgment, but instead that she preferred to talk politics. I do not blame her for wanting to talk politics, but then she should not have done so on the pretext of discussing a court case.

There are other cases as well.

She also mentioned the fact that she hoped we would respect the judgment in this particular case. I do not think that the position could be made clearer than it was made in the hon. the Minister’s comments on 22 June when he said—

What more must the hon. the Minister say? In this regard, then, I should like to say to the hon. member that, while blue suits her admirably, I do not think her logic is admirable.

Never mind what I look like.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Speaker, in my humble opinion the provisions of this Bill can be divided into four main groups. The first deals with the regulation of the socioeconomic factors that will make life easier for the Black man in the urban areas of South Africa and will give rise to less overconcentration and overcrowding. In this regard I refer to clause 4, which entails that consideration will be given to certain rights of families of section 10(1)(b) people.

The second aspect to which I want to refer is consolidation, with particular reference to the Moutse affair. In the third place the Bill deals with certain aspects of development involving the Small Business Development Corporation. Fourthly, it deals with the establishment of effective Black managements. Because the hon. member for Houghton concentrated on the Rikhoto affair and the Moutse affair, I shall follow the same path and confine myself more specifically to those two of the four main aspects.

When one looks at clause 4 of the Bill, it is very clear that in South Africa it is especially necessary to guard against an imbalance between the provision of employment opportunities and the provision of housing. This imbalance can have grave consequences in the political and socio-economic development of the Black people. Put differently: Growth, including growth in our Black areas, particularly in the urban areas of South Africa, must, in the nature of the matter, be balanced. Moreover, there is in South Africa an absolute physical limitation on unlimited growth of cities and residential areas for Black people. In this regard one need only call to mind the water restrictions that are in force and that are restricting unlimited industrial growth on the Witwatersrand. Therefore growth must take place in a balanced way.

When one has too much housing and too few employment opportunities, one creates a recipe for all manner of evil. When one has too many employment opportunities and too little housing, one has the evil of overcrowding, and everything that that involves. Therefore, in order to preserve the quality of life of existing communities and even to promote it, it is a prerequisite that there should be a balance between employment opportunities and housing and the infrastructures that are created.

I wish to state by way of introduction that it is really true that as far as South Africa is concerned there is an imbalance between the places where employment opportunities are created. This makes it essential to have a policy of deconcentration and decentralization. Serious attention must be given to these matters in the interests of all.

Moreover, as regards housing for Black people within the White Republic of South Africa there is a tremendous shortage, to be specific, a shortage of approximately 160 000 to 180 000 houses. It is against this background that we must consider clause 4.

Therefore, when we look at clause 4 against this background, we notice a few things. One of the first is that no new rights are being created for Black people. All the Appeal Court did in the Rikhoto case was to say that the people had already acquired those rights. One aspect we must understand very clearly is that no new rights have been created for Black people by the Rikhoto case to tell the truth, nowhere in the Rikhoto case is it said that people can demand to obtain a house in the Republic of South Africa.

†That, of course, deals with a statement which the hon. member for Houghton made when she said people could demand houses. If she would indicate to me any passage where the Appellate Division found that a person could demand housing, please let me know.

I said exactly the opposite.

It is not clear what the hon. member says. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

We must understand very clearly that the Appeal Court judgment confirmed certain rights but only in certain circumstances. Only with regard to certain limited circumstances did the Appeal Court judgment grant certain rights. Then, what we in fact say when we take cognizance of the judgment, and we do want to give effect to the Appeal Court judgment, is that we must take note of some of the requirements. It is necessary that we take cognizance of the requirements set by the Appeal Court. There are several that I should like to summarize in a paragraph. Firstly, a specific worker must work for one employer for 10 years, on the understanding that he has visited his home outside the prescribed area on paid leave. Subsequently, in terms of a call-in card, he again entered into a service contract with the same employer which was attested outside the area, in his home district. On his return he was again employed by that specific person. If the hon. member for Houghton does not agree with what I say, namely that that is the interpretation of the court judgment, then she and the members of her party are most welcome to point out my mistakes. If one wishes to recognize the judgment of the court, then we must recognize both the letter and, as far as possible, the spirit. That is what we are attempting to do. A very important aspect that we must not overlook is that contract workers who obtain the right, or who already have an established right to stay here, are not additional people entering the White area. They are people who are already here. The de facto situation is that they have been working for one employer for 10 years. All that is happening is that this de facto situation is being transformed into a de jure situation. Therefore it would be wrong to say that there is going to be a greater inflow of contract workers due to the Rikhoto judgment. The people are already here. However, the problem lies in the fact that these people have families.

That is very unfortunate, is it not?

The hon. member for Houghton specifically pointed out that there was no housing here for all these people.

Why not? That is due to negligence on the part of the Government.

The de facto situation is that at present there are insufficient houses. We are not arguing about the reasons for this. At the moment the factual situation is that—in the words of the hon. member for Houghton—there is insufficient housing. For that reason we must look after the needs, the quality of life of those people who do have housing. We should not like slums to develop in the Black communities where there is housing. We do not want overcrowding to occur. To protect the rights of the Black people who are already established there, it is necessary that we give attention to the problem we are faced with. I want to state very clearly that it is not true that the families of these Black people can never come and live with them. Provision has been made for that. In certain circumstances their families are welcome. Those circumstances were very clearly expounded in a statement issued by the hon. the Minister when he said that we had to be practical and realistic about the matter. It was very clearly expounded, and I can repeat it if necessary. For example, a person who wants to build a house must have a plot permit. Or else he must have a residence permit to rent a board dwelling. There are several requirements. Since the hon. member Prof. Olivier is scribbling so hastily, I shall mention all of them. If I am not careful he will say that I have not mentioned all of them. The fact of the matter is that when the head of the household has a plot permit to construct a private dwelling, and when a residence permit has been awarded to lease a board dwelling, when a certificate is awarded for occupation of a board dwelling, when a leasing right has been awarded in regard to a plot on which a dwelling is being constructed, when family housing is provided outside a Black area by his employer in terms of section 9(2)(f), then his family can come and live with him. However, the problem is that until recently, that worker was a contract worker. He lived in single quarters. Clearly we could not allow his family to come and stay with him if he continued to live in that way. Nor can we allow squatting and slum areas to occur.

The question is asked: Whose fault is it? Why is there no housing for these people? I should like to point out that in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Edenvale, the hon. the Minister replied that it was only in the area of the Highveld Administration Board, the area in the vicinity of Middelburg in the Transvaal, that there was a shortage of houses—to be specific, a waiting list of 5 000 persons. In order to assist these people, this Government is providing an amount of R7 million in the present financial year. Moreover, 1 107 plots have been provided for the construction of houses in terms of the lease system. 802 plots have been provided for the provision of services in terms of future site and service schemes. The hon. member of the PFP asked that. The provision of an infrastructure on 2 656 plots is being planned at present and schemes for the construction of 742 houses, with infrastructure, have been agreed to. Reading all this, one realizes what this Government is achieving in the area of that Administration Board, and one would have expected those hon. members to have expressed gratitude for this at least. This Government is aware of the problems, and the Government is attending to these problems ans solving them, and this is also in the interests of the quality of life of the Black people directly involved. I think that the Black people in South Africa also realize what the Government is doing for them in this regard. I mentioned the example of the area of the Highveld Administration Board, because the question was asked by one of the speakers of the official Opposition. Then, when we consider the Rikhoto affair, we see that there will be no major influx of people, that no new rights are being established. We are also aware that there is legislation before the Select Committee on the constitution, legislation relating to orderly movement and settlement, in terms of which it will be possible to investigate if this matter, of which mention is made in this legislation before us, were to get out of hand. Therefore, I foresee that by way of the legislation before us, the position of the Black man will be stabilized and I also believe that this will be to the benefit of the white community in the areas in question.

The second aspect of this legislation that I wish to raise is the aspect of consolidation that was mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton. She spoke about the Moutse area. Clauses 15 and 19 of this Bill deal with the Moutse area. The Moutse area is situated to the north east of kwaNdebele and various commissions of Co-operation and Development have made various recommendations in this connection. I want to say here and now that this is not an easy task. I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that if she has met certain deputations over the past three years, then the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has probably met ten times that number of deputations. Not only did he meet the deputations from Lebowa, he also met those from kwaNdebele. The hon. member for Houghton did not tell us whether she listened to the people of kwaNdebele. [Interjections.] If a person pretends to state a case in an unbiased way it is to be expected that one would at least listen to both sides of the case. In terms of a recommendation by the commission the idea is to incorporate Moutse in kwaNdebele over the years. However, the problem is in fact that the people of Moutse have representation in the legislative assembly of Lebowa. It is a problem. The situation now is that what the legislation, as it stands before us at present, amounts to is that the legislative representation of Moutse in Lebowa will be done away with. The point here is in fact that consolidation is an extremely difficult problem in this area. When one puts consolidation into effect in such an area, the timing of steps is of the utmost importance, the co-ordination of steps is of the utmost importance and therefore, since these clauses are now creating a situation so finally and specifically, it is quite possible that amendments will be effected in the Committee Stage to promote co-ordination and timing. It is possible, for example, that an amendment may be effected in terms of which the State President may in certain circumstances direct that various clauses will come into operation on various dates.

It must be understood that the co-ordination of steps and the timing of their introduction is of the utmost importance in these circumstances because, as the hon. member for Houghton rightly said, really sensitive issues are at stake here. Another very important aspect in regard to consolidation is that certain powers are being vested in the economic development corporations to enable them to carry out development in certain areas.

I think I have dealt with the arguments of the hon. member for Houghton. I have told her that on the basis of a strict interpretation of the Act, the Government is keeping strictly to the word of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. With regard to the consolidation of Moutse I have told her that it is not only she and her party who speak to the people; we do so too. In the case of Moutse in particular we fully realize that careful planning, careful co-ordination and careful timing is necessary here, and for that reason an amendment of the clauses in question is possible during the Committee Stage.

I do not want to take the matter much further, except that I must just point out briefly, as a third aspect, that the legislation provides for the actual coming into operation of the Black local authorities which are to be elected in the course of this year. The Bill underlines the fact that the development of the Black people and their local authorities is following a different path to that of the development of White people. Therefore this once again signifies implementation of the policy of separate development, which this party advocates. This is true in the broad sense, as a matter of principle, but in practice the fact is that the Bill makes provision for a mayor, a deputy mayor and a chief executive officer in the person of the Director-General. Moreover, there is a very important additional insertion, and it is important that this be realized, because the Black local authority will have far more powers than the Community Council. [Interjections.] This immediately answers that hon. member’s statement concerning White domination. That is not so, because in fact the Black local authorities are acquiring more powers than the Community Councils. There is a transitional stage during which the regulations will not necessarily be such that what applies to the Community Councils will also apply to the Black local authorities, which will obtain more powers. Therefore, the Minister is to a certain extent being granted a power as far as the regulations are concerned.

In the final instance the Bill has a development component. I refer here to the research that could be done with regard to sorghum beer. I refer, too, to the small business development corporation, sport attendance etc.

I wish to conclude by saying that this legislation indicates in particular that the Government is purposefully engaged in developing its policy, with the accompanying rise in the standard of living of all Black peoples. This is being done in the best interests of the Whites in the communities where the Blacks find themselves. I therefore support the Bill whole-heartedly.

Mr. Speaker, for many years I have been listening to speeches made here in this House by the hon. member for Houghton, and I do not think the hon. member demonstrated her opposition to this legislation today in the same dynamic way as she did a few decades ago. There are perhaps two reasons for this. The first is perhaps the adage “Age and matrimony tame all men”. However, I think that there is another reason for this as well. It is that the hon. member is astute enough and knows South African politics well enough to realize that the Government party, particularly during the past two years, has found itself on a slippery slope, and moving in the direction in which she would like it to move. Earlier today I said something in regard to another Bill, which I should now like to repeat. I think that if the hon. member for Houghton quietly thinks back to politics in the days when she came to Parliament for the first time and to the resistance which the NP put up in the years of the late Dr. Verwoerd and Mr. Vorster in regard to legislation of this nature, she will agree with me that there is a completely different NP in power today than there was at that time. I think this is one of the reasons why the hon. member did not react all that sharply in her opposition to the Bill today. [Interjections.]

The hon. member made a few other remarks which were very interesting. I think that some of the arguments which she used were very good. She said that the hon. the Minister was wary or careful—I may not say “afraid”—of the opposition which he could expect to meet with from certain organizations in the interior. She did not mention any names, but what it amounted to was that there were left-wing organizations in South Africa which were resisting this legislation. For example, there is the Black Sash and various other organizations whose names I shall not mention at this stage. The hon. member referred to them and I think she can do so with great certainty because she moves in those circles.

The hon. member for Houghton put forward a second point. It was a veiled threat of possible unrest which could occur in South Africa if the hon. the Minister should offer resistance to court judgements pertaining to this matter. I think that everyone in South Africa who has to work with this kind of legislation should, in the nature of things, be aware of extremistic elements present within population groups. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister should be very careful about how he refers to me. Surely he knows that we are still going to argue about the statements he made to the effect that the hon. member for Waterberg was causative of the Soweto riots. Riots occurred again recently and he must be very careful about how he deals with this matter. As far as the CP is concerned, we are aware of the elements which exist. When we are governing one day, we shall also be very careful … [Interjections.] Hon. members can rant and rave as much as they like, but anyone who takes cognizance of politics in South Africa knows what is happening in White politics today. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that the hon. member for Houghton pointed out, and in my opinion correctly so, that any resistance which occurs, any resistance to the Africanisation of the White areas, will in fact be exploited by leftist elements in the form of riots. The hon. member for Houghton pointed out a third aspect, which in my opinion was also correct, and that was when she referred to the “constructive engagement” on the part of the outside world. Anyone who has observed the actions of the NP during the past few months must be aware of the influence being exerted from the outside world on the South African Government. It is clear that this hon. Minister is one of the channels through which the Crockers …

You have been telling that old story for the past 10 years.

Yes, and I shall keep on telling it, I shall keep on telling it for the next decade and for as long as we have political debates in this country. [Interjections.] I shall not allow myself to be put off by that hon. Minister. He is one of the channels which is very susceptible to influence by people such as Crocker, Huntington and others. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Rissik an opportunity to state his case.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister should rather not refer to his past. The people who kept him on the right road were the NP leaders of earlier years. The hon. the Minister can no longer invoke those principles of the policy of apartheid in South Africa.

This Bill affects two material aspects of White-Black relations in South Africa. On the one hand we are concerned here with those Black individuals and families who find themselves in White South Africa, consequently with the so-called urban Black issue or problem. On the other hand we are very clearly concerned here with the development of the homelands or the national States. I think that both these essential features pertaining to this Bill are very important in respect of the population problems which we have in South Africa. On the one hand there is the presence of Black people in the White area, and on the other the development of the homelands.

I now wish to deal with that portion of the Bill relating to kwaNdebele. In the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister the ambivalence which is present within the NP today became very clearly apparent. On the one hand the NP is still adhering to the development of the homelands, but on the other hand there is the slippery slope to the left, the voices which are being raised, namely the acceptance of the Black people in White areas in such a way that they are being drawn into the Coloured-White-Indian constitutional dispensation of the NP. If one were merely to glance at the little blue book of the NP, to the question of whether apartheid still exists, the reply to that is very clearly the reply which the hon. the Minister gave in America a year or two ago. On the one hand there is the semblance of separation which is held out to those Black people who are conscious of their nationality, who are conscious of their own fatherland, and on the other the dialogue with the left-wing Whites, and with the left-wing elements which one finds among the Black people. What the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech was very interesting, and I wish to quote from Hansard, column 10735, where the hon. the Minister referred to kwaNdebele. I wish to quote to the hon. the Minister what he himself said in this House on that occasion. After that I shall advance certain arguments in that regard. The hon. the Minister had the following to say in this House. (Hansard, 1983, col. 10735)—

Does the hon. the Minister still stand by these words which he uttered?

I stand by my words, but I do not stand by what you are trying to make of them. [Interjections.]

Of course the hon. the Minister ought to stand by his words, Mr. Speaker. He can make his personally insulting remarks if he likes, but this is what he said in regard to the kwaNdebele.

And what do you say, Daan?

The hon. member will soon hear what I have to say about this. [Interjections.] However, the hon. the Minister went on to say—

With these words of the hon. the Minister, as they have been recorded in Hansard, I have no fault whatsoever to find. [Interjections.] I cannot fault a single word, a single comma, or a single period in that passage. [Interjections.] To my mind, however, the interesting question remains the following. This hon. Minister, a man who is also a member of a people, who is also a member of a party, a party which long ago also experienced the struggle of a people in its own territory, for which it fought and for which it cherished certain ideals, now wishes the kwaNdebele to have these things, but denies them to his own people. [Interjections.]

Nonsense! I have never heard such piffle before in my life. [Interjections.] I do not know how you come by it.

Order!

When it suits the NP, the governing party in South Africa … [Interjections.] I want to put it to the hon. member for Pretoria Central that at this moment he is not productively present in this House. Incidentally, he was not productive in his appearance on television either. [Interjections.] I just wish to remind the hon. member that one of my colleagues the hon. member for Brakpan, challenged him to appear on television with him so that they could discuss the new constitutional dispensation. The hon. member can tell me right now whether or not he is going to accept the challenge. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that the CP agrees with these standpoints of the kwaNdebele. [Interjections.] I agree with them, Mr. Speaker. We believe that a people, like the Ndebele, has the right to gather together in their own fatherland. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

In exactly the same way, Mr. Speaker, we grant every other … [Interjections.]

And if the Moutse do not want to join them, are you then going to force them to do so?

Order! Should I ask the hon. member for Rissik to keep quiet for a moment, so that the hon. member for Houghton can complete her speech?

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. member, supposing the Moutse people do not want to join the Ndebele, whether the hon. member and his party are going to force them to do so? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question which the hon. member for Houghton has just put to me. I shall come back to it later on in my speech. [Interjections.] All right then, allow me then to dispose of that point now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the hon. member for Houghton that I have no confidence in the way in which the hon. the Minister is causing negotiations to take place between one Black people and another. [Interjections.] To substantiate this I can refer to Ingwavuma and Kangwane, and what happened there. That is why I am personally omitting to mention my standpoint in regard to this matter at present. I have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the various ethnic groups. In the nature of things, too, it is not my task to do so. [Interjections.] Of course it is not my task. As far as the CP is concerned, we shall, when we have responsibilities in regard to Black peoples, take the diversity of factors very clearly into consideration before we arrive at specific decisions. I shall consequently refrain from commenting on the proposal of the hon. the Minister, because experience has taught me that I cannot trust the hon. the Minister in respect of talks which have been held on these matters. We of the CP will therefore continue to observe the matter and see what happens in this connection. [Interjections.] Furthermore, I accept that just as there are Whites in South Africa who do not have the same national consciousness or national pride as I have, or who do not have the same interest in the continued existence of their own fatherland, there are also those among the Black peoples who do not have that consciousness. In every people one has an element which is not as nationalistic as other people.

How true that is!

The hon. member for Mossel Bay is one of the people who fall into that category. When he had an opportunity to vote for his own people, his own nation, within his own territory, he refused to do so and he also refuses to do so for the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.]

As far as the growth and establishment of kwaNdebele is concerned, I want to say that the CP is in complete agreement with this and that we support it fully. As a student, and also as a lecturer, I have paid several visits to various Ndebele areas …

[Inaudible.]

… and I want to say that in respect of nationalism they not only set an example to quite a number of other Black people, but also to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order. The history of kwaNdebele is, in my opinion, a wonderful history. Several of these people, as a result of the later Dr. Verwoerd’s standpoint … [Interjections.] I know that the hon. the Minister sitting behind the hon. the Minister of Law and Order feels uncomfortable when I discuss these matters. He talks a great deal but says very little. I maintain that the nationalism among the Ndebele was in fact the result of the standpoint adopted by the late Dr. Verwoerd. Dr. Verwoerd caused the spark of nationalism to be rekindled among the Ndebele, a spark which became a blazing flame so that today, among the Ndebele, we really experience the will to be settled as a specific ethnic unit in their own independent father-land.

[Inaudible.]

I have already replied to the question put by the hon. member for Houghton on the Moutse district. This kind of consolidation and exchange must occur in such a way that both of the groups involved derive maximum satisfaction from it. As I said, however, the CP had nothing to do with these negotiations. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development were responsible for them, and I do not have much confidence in what he does.

Another aspect I wish to touch upon is the well-known Rikhoto case. I reiterate that as far as this matter is concerned, I find an increasing lack of will-power in the hon. the Minister and also in the governing party to implement the old policy of separate development of the old NP. In addition to this lack of will-power, I also find a powerlessness on the part of the Government to implement it at all. A party which, under the banner of nationalism, is prepared to relinquish its sovereignty, is also prepared, as pressure is exerted nationally and internationally, to make far greater concessions. The pressure on the Government not to take action after the Rikhoto judgement appeared was pressure which came from within, from among its own members, and from external sources. I maintain that the hon. the Minister experienced pressure from his own caucus to deal with the Rikhoto matter in accordance to what the hon. the Minister professes are still the principles of the NP.

What pressure?

The hon. member for Innesdal is one of those who are exerting pressure. The second reason for the hon. the Minister’s unwillingness to act is that there is constant pressure on the Government from the leftist Afrikaans-language newspapers not to deal with those cases covered by the Rikhoto case. If one has followed this aspect in the Afrikaans-language newspapers during the last few months one has no doubt that the Prime Minister does not have the will to adopt a standpoint against the newspaper editors.

The third group of people exerting pressure on the hon. the Minister and the Government are the liberal academics, quite a number of whom we saw recently on television.

Like Prof. Carel Boshof?

No, not Carel Boshof. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

That hon. Deputy Minister must please not interrupt. He knows what happened between us earlier on.

You are not as wonderful as you think.

I do not think I am wonderful at all. However, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I do not say things in this House which are not the truth. [Interjections.] I shall say this inside and outside this House. To tell the truth, I have already said it outside this House. The hon. the Deputy Minister should have been listening, that is all. [Interjections.]

The hon. member Prof. Olivier referred to Sabra. But the hon. member for Pretoria Central says that Sabra has no scientific grounds on which to base its standpoint of the past few years. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister adopts the same standpoint as Sabra in respect of these matters. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, when he replies to the Second Reading of this Bill, to tell us what Sabra’s standpoint in respect of these matters was and is.

What matters? [Interjections.]

Do not come forward with stories now. The hon. the Minister should confine himself to what is relevant. If the hon. the Minister cannot do so, the hon. member for Mossel Bay will not be able to help him.

I also wish to make an observation in respect of the unwillingness and powerlessness of the Government resulting from the international pressure which is being exerted on the hon. the Minister. I have no doubt that in the Rikhoto case it was said by either the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and information or by external advisers that the Government should not at this stage adopt a strong standpoint on this matter.

You are talking nonsense.

During the past 18 months we have heard a great deal about the so-called nonsense which we were allegedly talking. We shall see in future who was talking nonsense and who was not. I want to state the standpoint that the Government and the hon. the Minister are preparing and conditioning the White voters for, on the one hand, consensus with Coloureds and Indians and, on the other, in respect of the Rihkoto case, it is a prelude to consensus with the so-called urban Black man. [Interjections.] I have no doubt that this is a case of a preparation and conditioning for the acceptance of the so-called urban Black man as such a permanent part of White South Africa that they must eventually become a constitutional part of the proposed tricameral system of the Government. The question we are asking the hon. the Minister is how many similar cases to those of Rihkoto we are going to find throughout the country and what the effect of these cases is going to be. How many people are involved?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister, who has such a lot of sanctimonious things to say about humanitarianism and matters of that kind, how long a person can withstand the pressure of people whose permanent settlement one recognizes. How long is one going to prevent the settlement of wives, children and family, and everything else that goes with it, in White South Africa? The entire question of urbanization in Africa, particularly in Southern Africa, is a matter to which one ought to give very responsible and profound thought. When one’s point of departure is similar to that of the NP, in respect of a new nation of Whites, Coloureds and Indians, one will eventually not be able to resist the pressure of Black people coming to the White areas and one will eventually have to lead one’s people gradually to the acceptance of Black people in a new dispensation. I maintain that in the case of the new city which is going to be established here in the Peninsula, to which they are going to stream in their hundreds of thousands, it is a prelude to the NP, the Government, under this Minister, no longer wishing to halt the influx of Black people into White areas, and not doing so either, and that he also has a new dispensation for the Black people in South Africa at the back of his mind. For that reason the CP will reject this measure. We reject the Bill on the basis of the fact that it encroaches on the principles of separate development and that this type of legislation entails that it is going to be made increasingly difficult for the Whites to realize their own self-determination in future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik has once again adopted the attitude to which we have all become accustomed and which we have come to expect from a person speaking on behalf of the CP. This is the stereotyped attitude of people so caught up in ideology, that it creates the impression that they could perhaps be living somewhere in an ideological fairyland. We who constitute the Government are dealing with realities. We are dealing with matters in regard to which we have to take realities into account. This is not as easy as thestandpoints adopted by representatives of the CP on the one hand, and representatives of the PFP on the other. Both are being driven by an ideology; the PFP by an ideology that sees South Africa as a single political structure in which all people have to be accommodated, and the CP by the possibility of watertight divisions between the various ethnic communities in South Africa. Neither of these ideologies can be realized as they stand, since there are realities that have to be taken into account.

When looking at this particular Bill before us, in which the implications of a recent judgement are being carried into effect in clause 4, we must consider that South Africa, as a developing industrial country, went through an historic process in which there was an influx to the metropolitan areas, where there were employment opportunities and where, in terms of legislation introduced before the NP came to power, certain rights could be acquired. In terms of those acquired rights, in terms of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, a verdict has now been given by the court which has clarified certain aspects which were perhaps not clear previously. The legal position has now been made clear in clause 4 of the Bill and specific expression has been given to what is stated in the judgement.

We have to contend with a situation of increasing urbanization. According to statistics, almost 35% of Blacks are urbanized at present and prospects are that over the next 17 years up to the year 2000 the urbanization process, in respect of Blacks as well, will increase to such an extent that we can expect between 60% and 65% of Blacks to be urbanized. We are dealing here with a typical problem which is not unique to South Africa. It is a world-wide phenomenon. What makes it particularly difficult, however, is that we in South Africa have to have a dual approach. We are dealing with a problem which is a Third World phenomenon and which we have to try to solve in terms of First World norms. This is what makes the problem so exceptionally difficult to solve. On the one hand there is the normal surge towards urbanization, which is not only taking place in South Africa. In countries such at Zimbabwe, Zambia and Mozambique and other countries in Africa the process of urbanization is taking place just as rapidly. We cannot solve the problem like Nigeria did, for example. Only this year Nigeria told 2 million people: You have to leave this country within two months. Those people were forced out of Nigeria. Some of them returned. We cannot apply the norms of the Third World and expect the world to accept that that is Africa. There are certain other norms in terms of which we are expected to act. Hon. members of the CP do not always show an understanding of the fact that we cannot act as though we live on an island and that we cannot act as we wish. They do not always show an understanding of the situation. On the other hand, the PFP says that we should simply throw everything open, that we must allow everything to develop. They want us to develop as one nation in which all our social and economic problems must be solved in an instant, as in a fairytale. We do not have that kind of situation here, and this is another fact the PFP does not want to admit. In their approach, they have to adopt a standpoint that accords with international world opinion. We are not able to do that either.

I have already stated that in terms of consolidation legislation on Blacks in the urban areas, certain rights can be acquired. In any developing community, it is accepted that not only are there rights that can be acquired, but also that certain responsibilities are acquired in conjunction with those rights. The standpoint of the official Opposition, however, is that we should only give effect to the acquired rights. Neither the individual, nor the private sector has any responsibility in terms of acquired rights. Their standpoint is that if rights have been acquired, it is the rightful duty of the State to make provision for giving effect to those rights. However, it is not as simple or as easy as that. There has to be a certain ordering. Due to historical developments, we in South Africa were forced into a situation in which we as different ethnic communities were forced into a single political structure. We find ourselves in this situation as a result of our colonial history. We now have to try to find solutions in a multi-ethnic, multiracial situation, whereas problems of this nature are dealt with in other countries of the world in an internationally acceptable way. For example, the USA has immigration laws in terms of which they restrict the influx of people from countries in Central America. They restrict contract workers in terms of their immigration laws. Britain has legislation in terms of which they can invoke their immigration laws, which have been made much more stringent in recent years. The same applies to other countries in Europe, as well as in Asia, where there is tension as a result of the influx of other ethnic or national elements. At present a tense situation has developed in Sri Lanka between one section of the Sri Lankan population and another group regarded by them as the Tamil influx from India. They are dealing with this as an international situation, however.

On the other hand, we in South Africa are expected to deal with this matter as though we are, in fact, in practical terms, a single nation in a single State with a single community. That is why it is so much more difficult for us to deal with this situation. Nevertheless, the Government accepts its responsibility to consider all the factors seriously and to try to find a solution which would be acceptable to the largest possible responsible sector.

Provision is made in clause 4 that further housing not to be provided for people who have acquired their rights on the basis of this judgement as well as on the basis of the norms we adhere to, in addition to existing housing facilities. It is therefore accepted that if the wives and children of such contract workers reside outside the urban areas, they will only be allowed into the urban areas if certain housing rights have been accepted by the relevant persons, who have now acquired residential rights. They therefore have to have a site permit for the construction of a private home, or they must have acquired leasehold rights, or they themselves must have built a house on a site allocated to them, or they must already have accommodation for their families. They are not permitted to have lived somewhere as a boarder or as a single person and then, when they have acquired these rights, insist on having the right to accommodation for their families and on the State simply having to provide that accommodation.

I have just indicated that on the one hand, we are dealing with a Third World situation in an attempt to implement First World norms. I would say that in the economic development process of Southern Africa, in view of the rivalry in industrial development under normal circumstances in this computer age, many of the industrialists in our metropolitan areas would possibly tend to want to automatize in order to make do with a minimum amount of unskilled and semi-skilled workers. Industrialists in other countries, in Europe and America, are automatizing, and those firms are able to yield better production at competitive international prices, but in South Africa we take cognizance of the realities of the population set-up. We take cognizance of the fact that we have a large population and there are people who have to find employment. The State encourages industrialists rather to tackle their production pattern on a labour-intensive basis. The State cannot be expected to provide housing for the families of all those flocking to the cities. I should very much like to see people who work in the cities being allowed to live in those cities with their families. That is the ideal, and it would also be ideal solution, but there are restrictions on the capability of the State to provide official housing. Nor can we allow uncontrolled squatting. This would certainly cause greater chaos than the present restriction on the influx of people for whom no housing is available. Therefore these matters must be seen in perspective and be tackled in a balanced way. This is what is being done now. We cannot permit a leaning towards the ideology of absolute division, since this would only exacerbate the problem. Nor can we allow a leaning towards the other ideology which advocates a single community, since there would be chaos as far as relations among communities in this country are concerned. Consequently, this matter has to be tackled in a balanced way and be seen in perspective. Gradual provision must be made for the eventual acceptance by industrialists themselves to a greater degree of the cost structure that results from the social responsibility that occurs in the metropolitan areas in the development process.

It is not as though this Government is not doing anything with regard to this situation. Provision is made in clauses 1 to 3 for the recognition of the Small Business Development Corporation as an undertaking that qualifies for the establishment of business undertakings in Black areas. An attempt is therefore being made to encourage and increase the productivity of Black areas to such an extent that more employment opportunities will be created in the Black areas. The benefits of decentralization which the Government has come forward with and for which an initial amount of R2 000 million has already been voted to encourage the decentralization of industries in Black areas, or in areas bordering the national States, is an attempt to channel the creation of employment opportunities in such a way that the Black areas will also benefit economically. The State and this Government therefore recognize the need for the creation of employment opportunities in Black areas or neighbouring Black areas. Surely this is an important method of approach as regards this matter.

I should like to come back to a matter the hon. member for Rissik mentioned. He referred to the keen nationalism of the “kwaNdebele”. That is the term he used. I do not take it amiss of him that he has no knowledge of this Black language. “kwaNdebele” means “place of the Ndebele”, the land of the Ndebele. The nation is called the “Ndebele”, and not the “kwaNdebele”. He therefore made a mistake in this respect, but perhaps he will use the correct term in future.

The other aspect I think he was not quite correct about, is when he intimated that the keen nationalism of the Ndbele was awakened by Dr. Verwoerd. I think he was wrong in this respect as well, since the Ndebele were only recognized as a separate ethnic group after I came to Parliament in 1966. Dr. Verwoerd was assassinated here in the Prime Minister’s seat on 6 September 1966. In other words, in Dr. Verwoerd’s time the Ndebele had not yet been recognized as a separate ethnic group. He therefore made a mistake in that respect as well. With all the piety I have for the keen intellect and the fundamental approach of Dr. Verwoerd, I still think he made one cardinal, practical error of judgment. That was the question of investment and development in the Black areas. If, in his time, Dr. Verwoerd had permitted the channelling of investments to the Black States, it would have been a completely different kettle of fish today. There would not have been the pressure of Blacks flocking to employment opportunities which were only available in the White areas, in terms of Dr. Verwoerd’s approach. I therefore think that despite his tremendous intellect and despite his fundamental approach, with which I basically agree, he made mistakes which are causing tremendous problems for us today. I emphasize that I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Verwoerd’s general approach. I shall always have respect for the work he did, but we must be realistic and admit that mistakes were made.

I believe that with this Bill we are in the process of fulfilling the needs that exist in terms of the present situation. We are not deviating from a principle. No new rights are being created, but the rights that have been acquired are merely being defined more clearly.

In conclusion, I should just like to refer to another odd phenomenon which was perhaps not generally recognized upon the publication of this Bill. I am referring to clause 1, in which, in the year 1983, 70 years after the original Black Land Act, which was drawn up in Dutch, an amendment to that Act is being moved which is still in Dutch. In other words, Dutch is still recognized in statutory amendments that are being discussed here today. I think we all admit that although Afrikaans and English are the only official languages in South Africa, in recognizing Afrikaans and English as the only official languages, we still have to make use of Dutch to clarify our Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Klip River made a few important statements in connection with the number of people who would be involved in the urbanization process by the end of this century. In this regard he mentioned the figure of 65%. This is a point I shall return to during the course of my speech.

†Without being disrespectful I should like to suggest that perhaps Lewis Carroll, the marvellous author of Alice in Wonderland, might in fact have had something to say about the topics contained in this piece of omnibus legislation that is now before us. I think the hon. the Minister will enjoy Lewis Carroll, having described himself towards the end of his speech as an affable fellow, and I am sure the hon. the Minister has an affable sense of humor. He would then see that this could probably be described as a phantasmagoria; something comparable with some of the delightful pieces of literature created by Lewis Carroll. In terms of this legislation we now have the position in which, for example, the Small Business Development Corporation, which is a juristic person, will be included under the definition of “Black” for the purpose of various other pieces of legislation. This legislation also stipulates who may be involved in the beer trade, and also where people may live and where they may attend sport meetings. Furthermore it deals with the development of their own local and community affairs, and finally also with the question of who lives where in kwaNdebele and Lebowa. It is quite clear that this is somewhat of an omnibus measure regulating the lives of people, and what they can and cannot do.

I should like to deal now with the two most contentious points contained in this measure, and already referred to by previous speakers. Those are, firstly, the question of the conditions relating to section 10(1)(b) of the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, resulting from the verdict in the Rikhoto case, and, secondly, the question of the adjustments made or intended to be made, in respect of the consolidation of Lebowa and kwaNdebele.

Before proceeding to discuss these two matters, however, I should first want to devote some attention to the first part of the Bill now before the House. Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill deal with the extension of the definition of “Black” in order to include also the Small Business Development Corporation. In this way the SBDC will be enable to proceed with its important task within Black communities. It is very interesting to note that the three Acts which restrict the scope of those who can indeed carry out transactions with Black people—the Black Land Act, 1913, the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, and the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945—virtually bring about a situation in which people who are not Blacks are unable to enter into any agreement, transaction or lease with Black people, and have no right too of acquiring any interest in any agreement, transaction or lease, or any servitude pertaining to any such agreement, transaction or lease, within townships inside or outside of the scheduled Black areas without prior approval by the Minister. These restrictions are now being removed by this amending legislation in respect of the Small Business Development Corporation.

The situation being what it is, we in the NRP believe that whilst it appears to be only a small amendment, aimed at promoting self-help, entrepreneurship and the free enterprise system among the Black people, this measure is indeed a very big move in a positive direction. Therefore, I believe, it is deserving of a certain amount of respectful discussion. It is clear that a lot of positive thinking and planning has gone into the whole concept surrounding this legislation.

I do not intend to waste any time by repeating the whole history of this matter and by blaming the Government again for its restricting policies applied over the past 30 years. That is, I believe, water under the bridge. The reality is that we have now reached a point where we realize how essential it is to apply White expertise and White capital in order to aid whoever is willing and able to meet the challenge presented in the field of Black development, whoever is willing and able to help the Black people of this country to perpetuate the value system which is essentially their own, and which is of such great value to them, particularly in view of the many failures of ever so many once vitally important value systems in countries beyond our northern borders, and also elsewhere in the world. It is also, I believe, important to take note of the fact that much attention is at present being given to the so-called informal sector. Suddenly people in South Africa have begun to look at the whole concept of the informal sector, what exactly it consists of, where it operates, how big it is, what it is capable of, whether in fact we can improve it without running the risk of perhaps over-regulating it and therefore to a degree smothering it, and what action should be taken to encourage and develop the informal sector as much as possible in order to get people involved in the free enterprise system. I would say that in fact this is a terribly important aspect and that the Small Business Development Corporation, with its involvement in these affairs, is likely to come into contact with these people to a far greater extent and will get an idea of the extent to which this sector already functions and what methods can be employed to motivate people to become increasingly involved in this sector without over-regulating or trying to bring about too orderly a situation which would in fact be the reverse of propagating the spirit of free enterprise, etc. It is interesting that in fact most of the people involved in the informal sector probably learnt their skills in the formal sector. We in these benches feel that, together with this amendment which allows the Small Business Development Corporation to become involved, one should also look at the question of the Blacks being involved to a greater extent in order to get a total cross-pollination and a free flow of free enterprise right across our common economy and that therefore one should look very closely at the question of opening up the central business districts. Anything which the Black entrepreneur sees as an obstacle restricting his further development is likely to be counterproductive. He must be able to see that there are no restrictions to equal opportunity in an incontrovertibly common economy. We do not believe that it is enough to allow White expertise and capital into Black areas. We believe that Black expertise and capital—and, with it, the will to succeed within our value system—should be allowed to move out of Black areas into the commercial and industrial heart of South Africa, wherever that may be. I just wanted to say those few words on the question of the regulation of the situation as far as the Small Business Development Corporation is concerned. So far most hon. members have passed over that. It is however, a first step into that field and I believe that that area must be broadened considerably. It is an area in which deregulation is in fact the key word and not over-regulation.

I should now like to spend some time on the question of the Rikhoto judgment and the points made by previous speakers in respect of this. For us, too, there are certain areas in which we should like assurances from the hon. the Minister prior to making a final decision on whether we will or will not support these amendments. The Government of the country established norms or qualifications for people to have access to residential rights with their families. Those qualifications were stipulated in section 10(1)(b) as being 10 years’ employment with one employer or 15 years in the same area continuously with different employers. It appears to me to be an amazing situation that the Government is now surprised when people have in fact qualified for residential rights. That brings one back to the point where one wonders what the motive was in establishing a system of qualification for residential rights. Viewing the matter in a benign way, if the arbitrary figures of 10 years and 15 years are considered as being well thought out in terms of a stable labour force and if people who indeed qualify for those rights are thus considered as deserving of enjoying residential rights for themselves and their families on a permanent basis, one wonders why in fact we have now been caught off guard. Surely the expectation would have been that people would qualify. Conversely one could say that the hope was when those levels of qualification were established that the period was so long that people would not qualify, and therefore they would not be faced with a problem. However, the fact of the matter is that people have now qualified. One would have expected that the Government in expectation of that qualification would have prepared itself for the results of that qualification.

We on these benches believe that the essence of the Rikhoto judgment is that people have qualified. We in this party differ from the hon. the Minister in the phrasing of the legalese in regard to the setting out of the conditions that were set out in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. He says that those conditions are not part of the qualifications. A man’s qualification is paramount; he has qualified and he has that right. Qualifications in terms of residential facilities are in effect an administrative situation which relates to a person’s family having access to the area. We would therefore like to make the point that the absolute right of qualification is contained within the 10 years or 15 years within the circumstances set out in section 10(1)(b). He has earned that right and therefore the condition set out relates to the availability of housing only in respect of when his family may join him. I know the hon. the Minister indicated to the hon. member for Houghton that he would in fact clarify the position with regard to those persons qualifying in terms of section 10(1)(b) in respect of the 15 year period, and we will wait to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply in that regard. The hon. the Minister looks a bit exasperated by that point.

No, I was only thinking that I have already made a statement. I will, however, clarify the matter in Hansard.

The hon. the Minister indicated to the hon. member for Houghton that he would clarify the question in regard to the 15 year period.

Yes, I will do that.

Can the hon. the Minister at the same time indicate his agreement with this party as to the fact that having been employed for that number of years the rights which those contract workers acquire are solely as a result of the number of years of service and that the conditions which are laid down in terms of accommodation relate to the physical ability of a worker’s family to move into an area and that they are not conditions attached to his right? Do I make myself clear in that respect? They have no bearing on whether he has a right or not. The right is contingent on his having worked for one employer for ten years or for different employers for 15 years. The residential side of it relates to the social aspect of whether his family has somewhere to live.

It is an additional condition.

We do not see it that way. It is not a condition relating to the right. The right is absolute. The actual appearing of the family in a specific area relates to the housing requirements. In a case where a worker is qualified in terms of section 10(1)(b) we believe the Government has an absolute obligation in respect of that family to ensure that the family gets priority in respect of the allocation of accommodation.

There is an enormous shortage already.

There is an enormous shortage as the hon. member for Houghton says but, in fact, what we are looking at here is just the tip of the urbanization iceberg. It is really just a backlog and if one cannot accelerate the processes of site and service schemes, 99-year leases and making accommodation available for the small number of people involved here—people who have qualified by virtue of their stable performance in the labour sphere—the chances of our coping with the urbanization situation to come appear very bleak indeed. To sum up, we would therefore like unambiguous acceptance of the right that has already been won on the basis of the period served and the fact that the Government feels itself under an obligation to procure as speedily as possible the accommodation required for these families.

I come now to the next contentious point which is the Lebowa-kwaNdebele aspect. We have other questions to ask the hon. the Minister to satisfy ourselves in regard to a situation which we feel is not satisfactory. Have the two parties in fact agreed or, singularly, has Lebowa agreed to the excision of the area concerned? That is the first question I would like to ask the hon. the Minister and I hope he will reply later. In terms of the Act in question, the National States Constitution Act, No. 21 of 1971, it is incumbent on the Minister to consult with the executive council in order to make changes in respect of the areas concerned and the representation in the legislative assembly deriving from those areas. We would like to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that Lebowa, in fact, has agreed to the transfer of that land and that they are in effect satisfied with the area which they are going to get instead, namely, the Immerpan-Saliesloot area. We would also like to know whether this area is comparable in size and productivity, how many people are already in that Saliesloot area and how many people are to be moved out of the Moutse area in the process of handing it over to kwaNdebele. In effect, the question is whether the whole matter is one which has been brought about as a result of agreement—in consultation with or by consultation, expressions which, of course, have very different meanings—with the respective executive councils concerned.

There is another point which I would like to mention in this regard as well. It is interesting to note that the hon. member for Rissik was becoming very involved a moment ago in regard to the urbanization process and the residential rights contained in this amendment. This amazes me because at the time this legislation was passed those hon. members were part of the NP. As members of the NP they agreed to the conditions under which Blacks would qualify for permanent residence. However, now that it has come about that some have in fact qualified it would appear that they no longer agree with the measure.

That is not the whole story.

The hon. member says that is not the whole story. The measure is on the Statute Book as an amendment passed during the period when the NP sought to control by these measures the presence of Blacks in the urban areas.

That is the NP’s way of discussing things. Do not argue like a Nat.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members of the CP were party to the legislation and in terms of that legislation they agreed to the conditions with which Blacks would have to comply in order to obtain permanent residence in the so-called White areas.

Pat, you did not like the Nats before and now you like them so much!

Mr. Speaker, I like straightforwardness. One cannot duck and dive in respect of this issue. Those hon. members of the CP were part of the party that framed this legislation and now suddenly because it does not suit them and they have formed a different party, the legislation is no good. South Africa is being saddled with the hon. members of the CP who were co-responsible for the framing of this legislation at the time and who obviously did not have the foresight to see what the results of their own legislation would be. What we have before us now is one of the results of that legislation and the Government is absolutely duty bound to accommodate those people in terms of the legislation, no matter how harsh it may have been. It has now resulted in certain people qualifying for permanent residence in the White areas.

Are you going to take the part of Gen. Smuts and the United Party as well?

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen has raised an interesting point, Sir. He has referred to the policy of the United Party. A moment ago the hon. member for Klip River was spouting about United Party policy and the lack of investment in the homelands.

Yes, he has also changed.

The hon. member for Klip River was quite right. The old United Party maintained that time should not be wasted on consolidation and that the development of the homelands should be started immediately and employment opportunities created. Well, that is ancient history but we now have a situation where people have qualified for permanent residential rights and while the hon. members of the CP were co-responsible for the passing of that legislation, they now do not like it.

The whole question of urbanization is one in regard to which the NRP feels that we have to have an extremely enlightened and realistic view in regard to what is facing us. There is no doubt that we are going to be faced with the enormous task of coping with the aspirations of people who have proper opportunities and access to commerce and industry, and it is in our interests that they assist in building themselves up otherwise the burden on the South African taxpayer will be absolutely intolerable. We believe that the Rikhoto judgment and the accompanying adjustment form once again the tip of the urbanization iceberg. There is a great backlog that has to be made up quickly and efficiently. Whilst testing the methods and ideas used against the reality of the accelerating momentum of the urbanization phenomenon we will have to refine and re-refine the process in order to harness the enormous potential of untapped human energy and thus make it more part of the solution than of the problem itself.

We shall listen with interest to the reply of the hon. the Minister in regard to Lebowa and kwaNdebele and the Moutse area as well as in regard to the principle in respect of the rights granted, whether they are absolute or contingent upon conditions, before we decide whether or not we are prepared to support this legislation of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that at this stage the NRP has not yet decided on how it is going to vote in regard to this legislation. I do not blame the hon. member for King William’s Town. If he does not have all the information, he must probably obtain that information before he can adopt a standpoint. It is just a pity that he did not obtain clarity about this matter before the time.

There are a few matters that have already been discussed at length in this debate. The first was the kwaNdebele/Lebowa matter, the consolidation of the Moutse area. The second was the Rikhoto case and the process of urbanization. Thirdly there was the question of the Small Business Development Corporation and, fourthly, the question of the distribution of sorghum beer. I also want to say a few words about these matters.

I think one can make the statement that South Africa is a developing country, a country developing industrially. In the course of development, urbanization takes place, as the hon. member for Klip River also pointed out. If urbanization takes place, we look for labour for the industrial development taking place. In the process of urbanization and development we then make use of Black labour in White areas.

In the Rikhoto case it was clearly the standpoint that as a result of the break in his contract and his returning to his homeland, Rikhoto was actually prevented from qualifying under section 10. He therefore had a break in his period of service. The decision of the court, however, was that because he had paid leave and his contract was renewed during that period, it was actually an uninterrupted contract. The principle involved here is whether one is going to accept or reject the decision and interpretation of the court. The principle of acknowledging the courts in South Africa and their decisions is, in my opinion, of primary importance.

Parliament is therefore no longer a sovereign body.

What is involved here is the interpretation of an Act. Surely it is true that if Parliament makes a law the courts are there, in terms of the constitution, to interpret that law. Let me ask the hon. member for Rissik whether he is opposed to the courts interpreting the laws of Parliament. [Interjections.] The hon. member is now shaking his head; I do not know whether he agrees or not.

You do not understand the matter.

No, I put a very straightforward question to the hon. member: Is he opposed to the principle of the courts interpreting the laws of this Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether, if Parliament makes a law and the court finds that the law does not meet with its requirements, this means that Parliament should omit to ensure that the law is improved? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Kuruman is implying that the courts wrongly interpret the Acts on the Statute Book. [Interjections.] That is actually what he is alleging. He says that the laws we make here are wrongly interpreted, but that is not an answer to my question. I was prepared to answer his question; let him now answer my question.

I say yes.

The hon. member for Rissik is therefore prepared to have the courts interpret an Act of Parliament.

Of course.

If the courts then interpret Acts of Parliament and find that Rikhoto had an uninterrupted contract and that he consequently—that was also what those people expected—qualifies in terms of the law, and one now deprives him of that, it is very clear, in the first place, that one is in point of fact not accepting the court’s rights of interpretation and, secondly, that one had some different intention. [Interjections.] I want the hon. member to listen to this. It means that one had some intention other than that he should qualify under the conditions of an uninterrupted contract over a period of 10 years. That could be the only conclusion one could come to.

There is also another aspect one has to take note of in this connection. If that person qualifies and obtains rights here, the legislation very clearly stipulates—the hon. members for Victoria West and Klip River pointed to that—what the consequences are as far as his presence in the White area is concerned. Whether he has acquired permanence in terms of section 10 or not, the fact remains that he is still always there to work. One has therefore not changed the practical situation in any way. Last week the hon. the Prime Minister said that one should be idealistic, but that such idealism should be tempered by reality. If one were not to grant them those rights, changing the law so that no Black man can acquire any rights for himself here, would there be fewer Blacks in the urban areas?

Leave that to us.

Mr. Speaker, that is our difficulty with the CP. As far as the public is concerned, they say that one should leave it to them and that they will eventually find a solution. Time is passing, however, and the Government must now find solutions for those problems.

There is yet another point I should like to deal with, and now I come to the hon. member for King William’s Town. He said that we should answer the question about whether it is an absolute right. He also wanted to know whether this absolute right devolved on the women and children. As previous speakers have pointed out, this matter is set out very clearly in the Bill. As far as women and children are concerned, there are specific measures that have to be complied with. The reason for this is that the Government’s prime responsibility is the maintenance of law and order and the establishment or orderly Black communities in White areas. If that cannot be done, one gets disorder, poverty, housing problems, problems of sanitation, etc. It is therefore the Government’s responsibility, and it is only fair and realistic to state, as a requirement, that a stand permit has to be granted for the erection of a private dwelling before those people can be accommodated. Secondly, a residential permit for renting a board dwelling must be granted. Thirdly a certificate of occupation of a board dwelling must be granted. Fourthly a right of leasehold must be allocated in regard to a stand on which a dwelling is to be erected. Fifthly, accommodation outside a Black residential area can be supplied by an employer in terms of section 9(2)(f) of the legislation. These provisions are contained in the legislation. Surely this is the orderly regulation of Black communities in such a situation.

How can one, when it comes to the right a person has earned, now compel the Government to provide a house, to obtain the funds, irrespective of the situation in which the Government finds itself? I think the obligation rests with the Government to create an orderly community, but that the Government is not obliged to supply housing. The obligation to supply the housing rests, in the first place, with the individual who obtains the work and is responsible for his family. This legislation meets that objective.

I now want to come to kwaNdebele and Moutse. The criticism levelled by many parties at the Government’s standpoint in this regard relates to the fact that a certain group’s evidence was heard, but that the principle that all parties’ evidence be heard before a just decision could be reached, was not complied with. The hon. member for Houghton alleges that the South Sotho in Moutse are not prepared to agree to Moutse being added to kwaNdebele. [Interjections.] I agree with the hon. member. They do not agree to that. Did the hon. member, however, listen to the evidence the Ndebele gave about Moutse?

You are adding people to them who do not want to go.

I am asking her whether she heard evidence from the Ndebeles about their standpoint. She did not. She is aware, however, that in Moutse there are differences of opinion about the number of South Sotho living there and number of Ndebele living there. If the hon. member has not heard all those viewpoints, surely she cannot come to a fair and just decision. As far as I can recall, that hon. member is always very particular about the rights of individuals and all relevant groups, but here she is ignoring the rights of a certain important ethnic group involved in the specific land. Why is she doing so? She is doing so merely because it suits her argument to criticize the Government. The Government is aware of the dispute that exists in regard to this specific area. In order to arrive at a fair solution, there must be consultation with both sides. The Government’s standpoint is that by means of the consultation that is taking place, and the power of conviction that is in evidence, the parties can be convinced of what is in the interests of all the groups, seen within the overall context of consolidation. That is not the standpoint of the CP either. As far as the Ndebele people are concerned, they say they stand by Dr. Verwoerd’s point of view.

But you were not listening at all. You do not know what it is all about.

I listened to the hon. member very carefully. I also listened to the way he framed his argument. It is not conducive to one’s argument if there is a tinge of emotion present—let me put it mildly—and I want to argue level-headedly with the hon. member. I also agree with the broad principle of what Dr. Verwoerd said, but what was Dr. Verwoerd’s specific standpoint in regard to kwaNdebele? He instituted a territorial authority for the 23 farms where Jack Mahlanga stays.

[Inaudible.]

Let the hon. member for De Aar listen to my argument as a whole and then he can draw his conclusions.

When Dr. Verwoerd established the territorial authorities there at the time, those territorial authorities were the beginning of the national States that had to be brought into being there. Those territorial authorities, however, overlapped ethnic boundaries because the tribal ties of those peoples had disintegrated to such an extent that no consolidation had yet taken place at that stage. Surely those are the true facts of the matter, and if one discusses that specific point with ethnologists, they tell one precisely the same thing. As far as that specific area of kwaNdebele is concerned, surely the Ndebele were widely scattered. That is specifically one of the reasons why there is disagreement about the 23 farms of Jack Mahlanga, about the 11 farms, but also about the Moutse areas that are involved.

I have not studied those aspects.

If the hon. member has not studied the matter in detail, he must not speak before he knows what he is talking about. What he is now saying is based on ignorance.

Whilst the Government has been trying, over the years, to settle Black people in certain areas, certain problems have been created, and are still being created. We must, however, unravel those problems in a way that affords the maximum degree of satisfaction. That is specifically what this Bill envisages, and that is why there must be consultation. The necessary machinery is being created so that we can have the maximum satisfaction possible, because one can never achieve complete satisfaction. There must be the necessary machinery for setting this in motion immediately. If we can manage to do that, surely we would be achieving specifically what the hon. member for Rissik envisages. In the process, however, they are too afraid to face up to reality, to take the bull by the horn and carry matters through to their logical conclusion. The hon. member need not worry, however, because the NP will do this for the CP. Eventually, however, the hon. member will find himself completely alone and without any supporters, his people having returned to us because they realize that the NP is governing South Africa in the correct and proper way. [Interjections.]

Now there is another aspect to which I should like to refer briefly, Mr. Speaker. This involves the question of sorghum beer. In the Bill under discussion cognizance is taken of the importance of the distribution of sorghum beer amongst the Black people. As far as I am concerned, there are two important facets involved in the question of the distribution of sorghum beer. Firstly as far as the Black people are concerned, this is a natural drink with a high nutritional value. Secondly it is also a product that is produced here in South Africa, and its local distribution embodies specific benefits for all the parties concerned. The provisions involving the destruction of sorghum beer, as contained in the measure under discussion, I therefore gladly support. In fact, I give my full support to the Bill as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member for Ventersdorp. I shall react in the course of my speech to a few of the aspects which he has mentioned.

The Bill which is before us actually involves eight matters, all of which are important. Six of these are essentially uncontroversial. I am referring, in the first place, to the respective situations dealt with in clauses 1, 2 and 3, concerning which there is no dispute. In this respect I just want to point out that I welcome the development which we observe in this regard. It is being made possible for bodies not conventionally classified as Black, and specifically for the Small Business Development Corporation, to obtain rights, in the scheduled and released areas as well as in Black urban areas. In principle, I believe, this is an important change or development, or whatever we wish to call it.

Of course, if this should provide the CP with ammunition—I regret having to say this—then so be it. In the light of the compelling situation with which we are faced, however, this is development which we simply cannot escape. I believe that in actual fact it is only the essential starting point for the further establishment of other interests as well in the Black areas. It is a starting point of the process in which we can get away from the rigid and inflexible division which we have hitherto known, where only certain specific groups of people have enjoyed the right to acquire land in the Black areas. This is a change for which I am truly grateful.

Regarding the question of sport—as the hon. member for Houghton has already indicated—other hon. members of this party will elaborate on this at a later stage. As the hon. the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech, however, clause 6 is in actual fact only a consequence of the attainment of independence by Venda, Ciskei and Transkei, and in that sense, therefore, it is not at all controversial either.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp also referred to the question of sorghum beer, with regard to which certain provisions are contained in clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill. In this respect, too, we have no wish to argue with him. Nevertheless, there is one matter concerning which I should like to have greater clarity; a matter to which the hon. the Minister made no reference at all in his Second Reading speech. I should like to have an explanation of the question of the further economic development of the national States, as we find it in clause 9. What is the nature of the cases which the hon. the Minister has in mind in this respect? I am referring now to the provision in clause 9, in terms of which a development corporation can be established for a specific portion of a national State. I would be gratified if the hon. the Minister could let us have some further information about this. However, it seems to me to be basically sound and acceptable. From the nature of the case, the amendments proposed in the legislation with regard to the Black Local Authorities Act, 1982, also appear to “be quite acceptable. I believe that they will contribute to the smooth implementation of the legislation.

As the hon. member for Houghton indicated, the two important aspects of the legislation with which the PFP does in fact have major problems are the Rikhoto case and the provision in this connection, as we find it in this measure, and the case of “Mahutse”.

It is Moutse; not “Mahutse”. [Interjections.]

Very well then; Moutse. However, I do not believe this is the time or place to engage in lessons in phonetics. Therefore I shall leave the matter at that.

I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Houghton said in connection with the Rikhoto case. She also indicated our concern about the provision in this connection in the Bill which is before us. This is indeed one of the reasons why we cannot support the measure. As the hon. member for Houghton indicated, we are grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister has at least accepted the effect of the Rikhoto decision in respect of contract workers. I think we are aware of the pressure which was brought to bear on the Government by members of its own party, by Administration Boards and by other persons and bodies to undo the Rikhoto decision by passing legislation which would invalidate that decision. I am glad that the hon. the Minister and the Government did not yield to that pressure. The hon. member for Pretoria West was quite right, of course, in saying that this decision concerned only one kind of case, namely that of a Black contract labourer who had worked for the same employer for 10 years and who had had paid leave every year. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has indicated that in dealing with this Bill, he will also clarify the other three outstanding points. The first of these—the hon. member for Houghton also referred to it—is how it affects the cases of contract labourers who have not gone on paid leave, but who are essentially in the same position as the people who have gone on paid leave and who have in fact been working for the same employer for 10 years or longer. Secondly, there are those contract labourers who could qualify in terms of the 15-year period. The hon. the Minister has already made an announcement, but I would be glad if he could give us a clear reply here in Parliament, for the record. The third question asked by the hon. member for Houghton concerned the citizens of independent States and their families.

I take it that the hon. the Minister has taken cognizance of what was said in the court judgment concerning the unclear nature of the regulations. The court explicitly stated that confusion existed concerning the precise meaning of the multiplicity of regulations in respect of the employment of contract workers. In the last paragraph of the judgment, the judge says—

This was said by a judge of appeal. If he says that lawyers find it difficult to understand these provisions, what about the unfortunate Black man who is subject to them?

And the hon. member for Mossel Bay? [Interjections.]

I read further—

This is an important point—

Obviously it is essential that those regulations be properly revised.

Unfortunately I have to say that the department and the Administration Boards are regarded with distrust by a large number of people. We shall watch the reformulation of these regulations very closely in order to see whether an attempt is going to be made to neutralize the effect of the Rikhoto decision. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we shall scrutinize those regulations in order to see whether they really observe and give effect to the decision.

We will keep our eyes on them.

Yes. I could not quite understand why the hon. member for Pretoria West attacked my hon. colleague. He began by asking how it was possible to reconcile the statement made by my hon. colleague, on the one hand, that the people do not have a right to housing …

He simply misunderstood it. He did not hear properly.

I am glad the hon. member for Pretoria West has such a good advocate in the person of the hon. the Minister. The hon. member contradicted himself in his speech. At the beginning of his speech he said one thing and later on he said another thing. That is all I want to say. I accept the hon. the Minister’s remark that the hon. member for Pretoria West misunderstood the hon. member for Houghton. Therefore I shall leave the matter at that.

However, we must accept that there is a housing shortage at the moment. There is a need for 160 000 to 180 000 houses at the moment. We are also aware of all the projections that have been made concerning the great need for Black housing which is going to arise in our urban areas in future. Surely we must recognize this if we want to be realistic. However, this brings us back to the question which the Government cannot get away from, and that is how we got into this predicament in respect of Black housing. The hon the Minister is aware of the occasion when the City of Johannesburg wiped out its housing shortage within a period of three years. This was made possible by a positive policy. The hon. the Minister is aware of what the Johannesburg City Council did at the time, when Black affairs still fell under the city council. Subsequently—I very much regret having to say this—there has been a consistent reluctance fully to accept responsibility for the provision of housing for Blacks. Why? Because the premise was, on the basis of what was formulated time and again in this House by hon. members opposite, that by 1978, there would be no Blacks left in the urban areas.

That is nonsense.

Yes, it is nonsense. It is absolute nonsense which was propagated. However, it is a result of that premise that there has been a failure to meet the housing needs of the Blacks.

I want to tell the hon. member for Klip River and the hon. member for Pretoria West that it is all very well to talk about decentralization. We can make every attempt to encourage decentralization, but this is not going to stop the migration of Blacks to urban areas. It will not even reduce it. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. member for Klip River is now saying in a shamefaced and apologetic way that he now realizes that the late Dr. Verwoerd made a mistake.

That is not what I said.

Dr. Verwoerd did make a mistake. He made a mistake when he rejected the fundamental recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission on Homeland development. All the recommendations were rejected. He made another mistake when he said that he would not allow White entrepreneurs to make contributions to the development of the Bantu homelands, as they were known at the time. That was a fundamental blunder. However, it was a blunder which was committed not only by the late Dr. Verwoerd, by successive NP Governments up to 1968. Then, for the first time, an economic development corporation was established. However, it was not a development corporation as recommended by the Tomlinson Commission, but an investment corporation. It fell far short of what was needed, even at that time. However, I do not wish to discuss these matters in a spirit of malicious pleasure. The hon. member for Klip River is perhaps too young to know that unfortunately, Dr. Verwoerd was not the only one who advocated that standpoint. He is too young to know that those people who told Dr. Verwoerd at the time that he was wrong, people from an NP background, were slandered and branded as traitors of Afrikanerdom. That is the situation. Dr. Verwoerd and good Nationalists within the Afrikaner establishment did something much worse at that time, thereby, by carrying on such a vendetta against those people who said that a mistake had been made in that the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission had not been accepted.

Give us a few examples.

He is making accusations against us here tonight.

Just a minute, I am not talking to them; I am talking to the hon. the Minister. I have pointed out who is to blame for the fact that there is a housing shortage. It is the Government’s fault and it cannot get away from that. It is true. I want to tell the hon. member for Klip River that it is all very well to talk about right being accompanied by responsibilities, but he must realize that the unfortunate Black man is not even allowed to carry out his responsibilities. Why does the hon. member for Klip River not join me in saying that we should now make it possible for the Black man to carry out his responsibilities? Let us give him freehold in the urban areas so that he may buy land there and so that his sense of responsibility may find expression in that way.

That is a simplistic approach. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Klip River says that this is a simplistic approach. It is just an example which I have given him. If ever there was a simplistic statement, however, a statement on which a whole philosophy was constructed tonight, it is the one about the need for rights to be accompanied by responsibilities. If ever there was a simplistic statement, this is one; I regret to say this to the hon. member for Klip River.

In the first place, I want to ask the hon. the Minister why, every time a Black man wants to establish his rights, he first has to go to court. Why is this? The hon. member for Houghton referred to one decision after another. I regret to say this, but the image which the hon. the Minister, the department and the administration boards have among the Blacks is that they force the Blacks to go to court every time to obtain the smallest concession. This is the department which is primarily supposed to serve, not the interests of the Whites or the interests of law and order—I am saying this in reply to the argument of the hon. member for Ventersdorp—but the interests of the Blacks. Without a shadow of doubt, the majority of Blacks in our urban areas do not regard the department as their friend.

Obstructive.

They do not regard it as such, and that is why the impression is created among them that every time they want to establish a right, they first have to go to court so that the court can confirm that they do have that right. Examples to which I could refer are the decisions in the Komani and Yapi cases.

Your speech began well. Now you are talking rubbish.

The hon. the Minister may say that I am talking rubbish, but I do not expect him to use such language when I am putting a serious matter to him.

You know that this thing began as far back as 1968, but now you blame us when people go to court in 1983.

Who was in power in 1968? Who was in power in 1952, when this new section 10 was introduced?

Certainly not those of us who are sitting here today. [Interjections.]

P. W. Botha was here.

If the hon. the Minister does not want to accept responsibility for what was done by previous NP Governments, that is his affair. I am not going to quarrel with him about that.

The hon. the Minister was a Deputy Minister for quite some time and has now been a Minister for several years. I am talking about the image—at least, the way I see it—which exists among a large number of the urban Blacks, and that is that the department and the administration boards cannot be regarded as their friends. That hon. Deputy Minister at the back is primarily responsible for the things which have happened down here at KTC. Every day an administration board raid is carried out, that impression is strengthened. I find it amazing that the hon. the Minister should blame me for saying these things to him and that he should sit back and do nothing to curb those daily actions against people. I say this to the hon. the Minister in all honesty.

I just want to say, too, that the image which the department ought to have is that it is in the first place a friend of the Blacks. Because of the acts committed by its officials and the administration boards, that image is denied and undermined. That use of bureaucratic red tape, those bureaucratic administrative acts to make the life of the Blacks in the urban areas unpleasant day after day, are creating a totally impossible situation.

You are absolutely right.

I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that with regard to this Bill, too, there was no need, in my opinion, for the insertion of this provision with regard to the families of people that are resident outside the prescribed area. I think this point is covered by the existing legislation. However, why create a negative image here once again? It is said here: No, you cannot come if there is no housing for you. Why did the hon. the Minister not simply say: We realize that there is a problem, but …

You encourage them to come here even though there is no housing for them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay knows very well that we do not encourage anybody. Those people are coming hers because of the purely human consideration that families wish to be united.

Partly, yes, but that is not the whole story. [Interjections.]

I simply cannot understand why the hon. the Minister did not make a positive statement and why he could not have said: Look, we accept that there is room here for Rikhoto; we also accept the decision in respect of families. We are going to do everything in our power to provide housing for those people. However, the hon. the Minister adopted a defensive standpoint and said: You cannot come because there is no housing for you.

But there is no housing.

Well then, build the houses. [Interjections.] Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have the negative impression which is being created here. They are resorting to preventive action only, rather than saying in a positive spirit: We shall go out of our way to provide those people with housing.

I want to come now to the question of the Moutse area. I want to say at once that hon. members know that we do not approve of the forcible removal of people. Hon. members opposite know that we do not approve of the ideological creation of independent territories.

And their consolidation.

In this case, however, more is involved than just that. I want to repeat that we shall never accept the way in which people like the Fingos and others are being forced to pledge their loyalty to a government which does not want them and which is foreign to them. Under no circumstances will we approve of the removal of these people from the Moutse district to kwaNdebele. They now have to be subjected against their will to the authority of a different government. The hon. member for Ventersdorp made a great fuss here about the question of the matter having two sides. What is involved here? What is involved here is the proclamation of 1980. I shall come back to that presently. However, I want to put a pertinent question to the hon. the Minister: Were the people of that area consulted? I am not talking about the Ndebele; I am talking about the people who live there. Were they consulted? I am putting this question to the hon. the Minister and I want him to give me a clear reply to it. Could the hon. member for Pretoria West tell me, perhaps, whether those people were specifically consulted about their incorporation into kwaNdebele?

On various occasions.

On various occasions? Thank you. I should very much like the hon. the Minister to explain to us exactly how that consultation took place. We want to know how and when that consultation took place. Furthermore, I want to ask whether they, the people living there, gave their consent, because the impression which exists is that they did not. The impression which exists is that the Government of Lebowa did not give its consent, because if it had consented, the legislation would not have been necessary, and I shall come back to this later.

But there is nothing new about that; everyone know that they object.

In his speech, the hon. the Minister did not tell us once that the Government of Lebowa had rejected the incorporation of Moutse into kwaNdebele. The hon. the Minister really should not trifle with us in this way.

I am not trifling with you.

If what the hon. the Deputy Minister says is true, and if the Government of Lebowa has indeed rejected it…

But you know that; it is common knowledge because it was published in the newspapers.

Since when must we rely on the Press?

I wish to proceed. The pertinent point is that the National States Constitution Act specifically provides that before an area can be excised, there must be consultation with the executive of the national State concerned. Now I am forced to conclude that the proclamation which was issued in 1980 had not been preceded by any such consultation. What happened in 1980, therefore, was a foretaste of the events concerning Ingwavuma and Kangwane.

We are now going to have another Ingwavuma.

Unfortunately that cannot happen. What happened? The kwaZulu and Kangwane Governments took the Government of the Republic of South Africa to court because the requirement of consultation had not been complied with, but what are we doing now? We are now using the sovereignty of Parliament to circumvent those decisions concerning Ingwavuma and Kangwane. [Interjections.] We are now introducing legislation, and what are we saying in the Bill? Listen very carefully to what we are saying in clause 19—

These are the provisions in terms of which Moutse is being excised—

Is this not disgraceful? It shall be deemed to be a proclamation!

To circumvent the courts.

Is the hon. the Minister not ashamed of himself? [Interjections.]

Furthermore, it is said in subsection (2) of clause 19—

That is the date on which that proclamation took effect.

I am shocked by this procedure. I am shocked that the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria West, who is the chairman of the commission, did not inform us of these facts in this House, and that the sovereignty of Parliament is being used to circumvent the provisions of the National States Constitution Act, because an Act of Parliament takes precedence over a proclamation. The sovereignty of Parliament is being used to circumvent the Appeal Court judgement on Ingwavuma.

Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly the hon. member Prof. Olivier, on a previous occasion after a heated debated between hon. members on this side and hon. members of the CP, said that he was tired of listening to who had said what to whom and when. It was therefore rather interesting to listen to him because during the first 20 minutes of his speech he delved back into the past and told us what Dr. Verwoerd and other hon. members sitting here today who thought otherwise then, had said. One can sympathize with him. I want to admit at once that he is one of the people who warned from the outset that problems could crop up in connection with the urbanization process and I can understand that the hon. member is sensitive about this. However it was really not pleasant for us to listen to who said what to whom and when. Before I discuss the provisions of clause 4 of the Bill I should like to make a single remark in connection with Moutse. It does not matter what the decision is going to be; there is going to be tension. Whether the people of Moutse are going to fall under the jurisdiction of kwaNdebele of whether they are going to be placed under the jurisdiction of Lebowa, there will be tension. The tension already exists today and will continue to exist in future. This Government has the responsibility in terms of its policy of reaching a decision. The hon. member was told that there had on various occasions been consultations with all interested parties. If one cannot reach consensus on a matter of this kind eventually the responsibility for taking the decision lies with the Government. In view of the fact that the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Pretoria West, has said that amendments may be made during the Committee stage, I do not wish to pursue the matter at this stage. I now want to come to the provisions of clause 4 and the speeches of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and the hon. member for Houghton.

Clause 4 is concerned with the definition of the word “reside” as it is used in section 10(1)(c) of the Blacks (Urban Area) Consolidation Act. It also concerns the effect of the Komani case on the Rikhoto case, a matter which the hon. member for Houghton also referred to. This Government has committed itself to complying with the provisions of the Rikhoto decision. I maintain that it has in fact done so. To the extent to which the objection of the hon. member for Houghton is valid, it is in actual fact only valid in terms of the Komani decision. In this connection, in the first place, I should like to thank the Government for its standpoint in complying with and abiding by the Appeal Court judgement. Problems have cropped up and we read in weekend Press reports that the hon. the Minister said that as far as the 15-year period and its application by certain administration boards was concerned, instructions had in fact been issued that it had to be applied on the basis of the Rikhoto case in connection with the 10-year qualification period. As far as the 15-year period is concerned, there are problems which crop up immediately. As far as the 10-year period is concerned, principles have been applied which are not applicable over a 15-year period, for example the concept of mutual agreement between employer and employee in connection with continuity of service. A second concept causing problems in this connection is that of “paid leave”. In his guidelines to the relevant administration boards the hon. the Minister referred to this. I want to ask the hon. the Minister when he finalizes his guidelines in connection with the 15-year period, to give serious consideration once more to the concept of “paid leave”. I want to motivate my statement.

The entire judgement, including the reference to paid leave, concerned the intention, the dishcarging of the onus of proof, in other words the intention of permanent presence with a view to the acquisition of rights in terms of section 10(1)(b). We have to differentiate between the mere hope of acquiring rights and the intention of doing so, the spes and the animus. The onus of proof remains as it is laid down in terms of the legislation as regards the application of a person to discharge his onus of proof, but let us revert to the intention rather than on petty technical points which may frustrate people. In this connection I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, because the impression being created by the requirements as laid down by various Administration Boards, is leading to resistance among Black people to identify with the people in their own States. They are afraid that they may lose their rights and for that reason they refuse to do so. This is going to be counter-productive in respect of the implementation of the Government’s policy.

I want to touch on another point and this is the application, once again in special cases, of the requirement in connection with citizenship on the date of the acquisition of rights. Other hon. members have also referred to this. Here the same argument is used once again, namely that through this type of behaviour we are causing alienation between people who are residing among us and people of the same culture or ethnic group in the national State. They refuse to identify with the people of their national State and in that way they make it more difficult for the Government to implement its policy. This should also be seen against the background that legislation does exist, that various policy statements have been made and that it has in fact been laid down in agreements with independent States that citizens of those States will not lose any of their rights within the so-called White area, within the Republic of South Africa, after independence. Against that background—and I know the hon. the Minister still has to make a statement on this—I want to ask the hon. the Minister to seriously consider not allowing this kind of thing to cause problems.

There is another interesting fact I want to refer to. Last week I made inquiries in the Witwatersrand area and I was informed that in the area of the East Rand Administration Board more than 5 000 applications have already been approved in terms of the Rhikoto judgement. In the West Rand Administration Board area almost 2 500 applications have already been approved. Of these almost 7 500 applicants applying for and acquiring rights in terms of section 10(1)(b), not one had up to the end of last week applied to bring in his wife and children. This can mean one of three things. It can mean that they are already here. It can also mean that they do not feel the need to bring in their wife and children. However, it may also mean that they have enough sense of responsibility not to bring in their wife and children while there is no housing. What I want to say is that the great fear among many people in this country of a tremendous influx, an inundation, was not a valid fear.

Nonsense!

Another point I want to refer to is the matter of housing. Hon. members have already referred to the housing problem. The hon. member for King William’s Town also referred to the urbanization process; a process which will in fact continue. It is all very well to insert clause 4 as it stands here, and in a certain sense I can also support it and most of us can support it owing to the fact that we believe in orderly urbanization. But it could also create problems. It depends on one’s philosophic approach to this, but I do not want to debate this now. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to continue in the first place to identify land, including land for the development of future large urban complexes, because the provision of housing is being restricted at this stage by the lack of available land for the provision of Black housing. This year we have already said a great deal about the provision of and the need for housing for Blacks, and I also know that for some time now the department has been working on and looking at various areas where large urban complexes could be developed. We are dealing with a top priority here. Honestly, if the Government can continue and try to speed up completing the identifying of these places, the provision of housing will be greatly facilitated.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the statements he has already made, and I want to appeal to him again to give judicious consideration to the guidelines which are to be formulated, particularly their formulation.